VEDPAL, J. This revision under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred teas Act) has been preferred by the revisionist Sanju alias Dheer-endra Kumar against the judgment and order dated 3. 7. 2008, passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Lucknow in Crl. Appeal No. 163 of 2008 Sanju alias Dheerendra Kumar v. State of U. P. under section 52 of the Act by which the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board dated 16. 5. 2008 rejecting the bail applica tion of the revisionist herein in case crime No. 130 of 2008 under sections 342, 376 and 506 I. P. C. , Police Station Itaunja, District Lucknow was confirmed. Heard learned Counsel for the revi sionist as well as learned A. G. A. for the State. Both the parties-agree that this mat ter be disposed of at this stage finally. 2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of this judgment are that Santosh Kumar, brother of the victim on 15. 4. 2008 had lodged a report against Sanju alias Dheerendra Kumar (revisionist herein), alleging that on 8. 4. 2008 at 8 p. m. Sanju alias Dhirendra Kumar had committed rape on her sister when she had gone to answer call of the nature. On the basis of the first in formation report the accused (revisionist herein) was arrested by the Police and taken before the Juvenile Justice Board where on the basis of the High School Cer tificate he was declared juvenile. The bail application moved on behalf of the revi sionist was rejected. Thereafter an appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge which was also rejected vide im pugned order dated 3. 7. 2008 on the ground that the offence has been committed by the revisionist because his parents have no control over him and in case he is released on bail, it is likely that he will associate with criminals and to release him on bail will defeat the ends of justice. 3. Feeling aggrieved with the afore said order of learned Additional Sessions Judge this revision has been filed. 4. 3. Feeling aggrieved with the afore said order of learned Additional Sessions Judge this revision has been filed. 4. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the revisionist that admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile and his bail application by the Board as well as Sessions Judge has been rejected without any suffi cient ground and there was no material against the revisionist to show that if he is released on bail, his release is likely to bring him into association with any crimi nal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. That gravity of the offence is no ground for re fusal of bail. It was further contended that provision of section 12 of the Act was not analysed properly because there was nothing in the report of Probation Officer that revisionist has any criminal history or previously he had been associated with any criminal. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the revisionist in support of his conten tions relied on Shaildrea Kumar Yadav v. State of U. P. Dand Nirnaya Sangrah 264. 5. Learned A. G. A. through his sub missions supported the impugned order. 6. I have carefully considered the re spective submissions made by the parties. Before averting merit and demerit of the case it is necessary to go through the provisions of section 12 of the Act which reads as follows; Bail of juvenile.- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwith standing anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution off fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psycho logical danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. (2) When such person having been ar rested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of commit ting him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order". 7. It reveals from the perusal of the provisions of section 12 of the Act that a juvenile is to be released on bail and he can be refused bail only if the grounds enumerated therein exist. Admittedly, the re visionist is a juvenile and has been declared by the Board and this fact was not contro verted by the prosecution even before the Court below. The bail of revisionist was rejected on the basis of the report submit ted by the Probation Officer. The report of the Probation Officer is to the effect that the parents of the juvenile have no proper control over him and this is the reason that he has committed the alleged offence. Ex cept the fact that the revisionist is an ac cused of the alleged offence, there is noth ing on record that he had been involved previously in any other case due to lack of control of his parents. There is nothing in the report of the Probation Officer that his release will bring him into association with any criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Thus, on the basis of the presumption Juvenile Jus tice Board as well as the Appellate Court has refused bail on the ground that the re lease of juvenile on bail will defeat the ends of the justice for which there is no justifica tion and material available on record. The mother of the juvenile was prepared to take him in her care on bail. Thus, the matter was not considered in its true perspective by Board as well as Appellate Court. The mother of the juvenile was prepared to take him in her care on bail. Thus, the matter was not considered in its true perspective by Board as well as Appellate Court. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is a beneficiary legisla ture and has been enacted for the benefit of juveniles for their care, protection treat ment, development and rehabilitation so that basic human right of children may be protected. In such legislature great attention is required to be given to a juvenile which is in conflict with law. The justice system which is available for adults was not considered suitable for being applied to de linquent juvenile. Thus, the Board as well as die appellate Court committed error in re fusing bail to the juvenile on the basis of the reports submitted by the Probation Officer which is unjustified and against the spirit and object of the Act. So the impugned order is liable to be set aside and juvenile is enti tled to bail in the circumstances. 8. The revision is, therefore, allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Juve nile Justice Board as well as by the Addi tional Sessions Judge, Lucknow are hereby set aside. 9. Let revisionist Sanju alias Dheer-endra Kumar involved in case crime No. 130 of 2008 under Sections 342, 376 and 506 I. P. C. , Police Station Itaunja district Lucknow be released on bail on furnishing by his mother Smt. Chandra Kanti w/o Sri Kunj Bihari a personal bond with two reli able sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate Ju venile Board, Lucknow. Revision Allowed. .