JUDGMENT Manak Mohta, J. - This revision petition has been filed on behalf of the delinquent juvenile Laxman Singh through his father, natural guardian, Man Singh against the order of the appellate Court dated 5.2.2009, by which the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara rejected his appeal and declined to enlarge him on bail.2. The brief facts of the case are that from the perusal of the record it is revealed that on the report of uncle of the deceased Bhura, a case was instituted. In his report inter alia he has stated that on 15.1.2009 when he came across T.A.D. Room, situated outside the village, he saw delinquent Laxman Singh in an objectionable position with the deceased,. Thereafter Laxman Singh ran away. On the next day, he got the information that her niece hanged from the tree and committed suicide. Police also started enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on his report, a case under Sections 376 and 306 I.P.C. was registered. The delinquent Laxman Singh was detained and on his interrogation that he also made an attempt to commit suicide, the offence under Section 309 I.P.C. was also added. At his instance and information, a rope was recovered by which it is stated that he took aid of that to commit suicide. After investigation, police filed challan under Sections 306, 376 and 309 I.P.C. A bail application was moved on behalf of the delinquent before the Juvenile Justice Board. Vide order dated 31.1.2009 that was rejected, looking to the seriousness of the offence. Against that order, appeal was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara but that too was rejected. Against that, the present revision petition has been filed. Notice of this revision petition' was given to the Public prosecutor, record of the case was called and arguments were heard.3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the delinquent juvenile submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The charge of offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is not sustainable, likewise for the charge of offence under Section 376 I.P.C. there is no material on record to subsist that charge. He also denied the commission of offence under Section 309 I.P.C. In addition to these contentions learned counsel submitted that admittedly it is a case of juvenile. The charge of offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is not sustainable, likewise for the charge of offence under Section 376 I.P.C. there is no material on record to subsist that charge. He also denied the commission of offence under Section 309 I.P.C. In addition to these contentions learned counsel submitted that admittedly it is a case of juvenile. The date of birth of the juvenile is 11.9.1991, as per the school record and on that basis, on the day of the alleged incident he was below 18 years. He urged that in a case of juvenile, the subordinate Court should have enlarged the delinquent on bail provided there is material that there are chances to mix up with the known criminals in case of bail. The learned counsel urged that the prosecution has utterly failed to produce such material that in case he is released on bail, he will come in contact with the known criminals. Learned counsel also stated that in case of juvenile, the learned Court should not have given much importance to the merit of the case but the welfare of the juvenile is the paramount consideration. Therefore, he should have been given in the custody of his father and who will keep the juvenile away from any criminal activities and that will be in the interest of the juvenile. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted in support of his contention a decision given by this Court in Jeeturam v. State of Rajasthan, 2005(1) RDD 340 (Raj.) . Again on the basis of this submission, a prayer was made to allow this revision and quash the order of the subordinate Court and enlarge the juvenile on bail.4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition and stated that there are serious allegations against the delinquent juvenile. Therefore, possibility remains that in case of bail, he will come in contact with the known criminals.5. I have considered the rival submissions and the relevant provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.6. It is settled position of law that in case of juvenile, paramount consideration is to see the welfare of the child. At this stage, merit consideration is of not much importance. The prosecution has not been able to furnish any information that in case of bail, he will come in contact with known criminals. It is settled position of law that in case of juvenile, paramount consideration is to see the welfare of the child. At this stage, merit consideration is of not much importance. The prosecution has not been able to furnish any information that in case of bail, he will come in contact with known criminals. The judgment cited by the petitioner's side is also relevant in this respect. In that case, the delinquent was involved in a case under Section 302 I.P.C. but considering the facts of the case, he was given in the custody of the father. Admittedly, in this case, on the day of alleged occurrence, the delinquent was below 18 years as per school record. The learned lower Court has not considered this aspect of the matter in the light of the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act and committed an error in rejecting the bail application filed before the juvenile Justice Board as well as before the appellate Court. I have also perused the facts from the angle of merit. The report of this incident has been made after a delay of 3 days. Further, there is no strong material, except the oral statement of the witnesses qua the charge under Section 376 I.P.C.7. Without commenting and observing any thing on the merit of the case I consider it fit to accept this revision petition and set aside the order of the subordinate Courts and find it proper to direct the juvenile justice Court to give in custody the juvenile Laxman Singh S/o Man Singh, to the father of the juvenile on submitting bail bonds of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 15,000/- each with an under taking that he will keep away the juvenile from the criminal activities and keep a watch over the juvenile.8. With the aforesaid observation the revision petition is allowed, the judgment of the lower Court is quashed. It is made clear that the lower Court will not be influenced by any observations made in this order. Revision petition allowed. *******