Order The instant revision application has been filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 with a prayer for quashing the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, XX, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 2007 whereby the petitioner's appeal filed under Section 52 of the Act against the order dated 21.9.2007 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi rejecting the petitioner's prayer for bail was dismissed. 2. Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner was made an accused in a case registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides the petitioner, the co-accused in the case are his father and other members of his family. Since the petitioner was found to be a juvenile on the date of occurrence, his case was forwarded for inquiry and disposal to the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner filed his prayer for bail under Section 12 of the Act but the Juvenile Justice Board vide its impugned order dated 21.9.2007 rejected his prayer. Against the order of rejection, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi reiterating his prayer for bail but the same was rejected by the impugned order of the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. 3. Assailing the impugned order, counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Additional Judicial Commissioner have erred, both on points of law as well as on facts in failing to consider that the petitioner deserves the privilege of bail. Shri SK Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the petitioner's prayer for bail was against the provisions of law since the rejection was made only on the ground that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious. Learned counsel argues further that the observation made in the impugned orders that the release of the petitioner would invariably bring him in association of his father who is already an accused in the same case and therefore, it would not be conducive in the interest of justice to release the petitioner on bail, is also misconceived. Learned counsel argues further that the observation made in the impugned orders that the release of the petitioner would invariably bring him in association of his father who is already an accused in the same case and therefore, it would not be conducive in the interest of justice to release the petitioner on bail, is also misconceived. Referring to the report of the probation officer, learned counsel explains that the probation officer has categorically stated that though, the petitioner's father being also an accused in the same case, is presently lodged in jail but the petitioner's mother and his maternal uncle are capable of taking the petitioner in their custody and to give him proper care and protection under their control. Learned counsel adds that the report of the probation officer also indicates that the incident had occurred between the members of the same family on account of partition of landed properties and that the petitioner is a student of Intermediate living under the care and custody of his guardians at village Patamda. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, while objecting to the prayer of the petitioner and controverting the grounds raised by the petitioner, offers support to the impugned orders as passed both by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional Judicial Commissioner. Learned counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioner is serious and his involvement in the crime alongwith his father and other accused persons has been categorically stated in the FIR. 5. From perusal of the impugned orders of the Juvenile Justice Board as also of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, it appears that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioner .is an accused of serious and grave offence. It has also been observed in the impugned order that since the petitioner's father is also an accused, the petitioner's release from custody would invariably bring him in association of his father, who is a known criminal and therefore, it would not be proper for the ends of justice to release the petitioner on bail. 6. It has also been observed in the impugned order that since the petitioner's father is also an accused, the petitioner's release from custody would invariably bring him in association of his father, who is a known criminal and therefore, it would not be proper for the ends of justice to release the petitioner on bail. 6. It appears, however, that neither the Juvenile Justice Board nor the Additional Judicial Commissioner has considered the report of the probation officer which indicates that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and that he is a student of I.A. and further, that the incident had occurred on account of a quarrel between the members of the same family in course of partition of the joint family properties. From the allegations in the FIR, it further appears that though the petitioner has been named as one of the accused but the father of the petitioner has been named as the principal offender. The learned courts below have also failed to take into consideration that the mother of the petitioner and the maternal uncle of the petitioner who, according to the probation officer's report, is a person of status and respect in the society, had offered to take custody of the petitioner and to give him proper care and protection under their control. 7. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act contains special provision for bail of juveniles in conflict with law and the principle laid down therein is that bail should be granted irrespective of the nature of alleged offence and the only exception to the rule is that release of the juvenile is likely to bring him in association with other known criminals and that his release would frustrate the ends of justice. Neither of these circumstances appear in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Merely because of the fact that the petitioner's father is an accused in the same case, it in itself does not lead to the inference that he is a "known criminal". The offer made by the petitioner's mother and his maternal uncle to take custody of the petitioner under their control would be sufficient to dispel the apprehension that the release of the petitioner would bring him in association of other known criminals. 8. In the light of the above discussion, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed. 8. In the light of the above discussion, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned orders as passed both by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional Judicial Commissioner, are hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi. The bonds shall be executed by the mother and maternal uncle of the petitioner and both of them shall give their respective undertaking that they shall take custody of the petitioner and to keep him under proper care and protection under their control and shall produce him as and when called upon by the Juvenile Justice Board to face the trial.