ORDER D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The Petitioner has prefered this criminal revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the judgment impugned recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2010, wherein the prayer for bail of the Petitioner rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Koderma in G.R. No. 1001 of 2009. arising out of Koderma P.S. Case No. 635 of 2009 was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. 2. Prosecution story in short was that the informant Arti Kumari had presented her written statement before the Koderms police stating therein that while she was in the forest along with the maternal grandmother of the Petitioner Mukesh Sao @ Mukesh Kumar Sao, she was overpowered by the Petitioner, who forcibly committed rape on her after removing her garments. Matter was reconciled by Sundari Devi, maternal grandmother of the Petitioner and she asked her not to disclose the occurrence. It was further alleged that thereafter the Petitioner established sexual relationship with the informant Arti Kumari on the false assurance that he would marry her. A panchayati was held, wherein the marriage of Arti Kumari with the Petitioner Mukesh Sao @ Mukesh Kumar Sao was refused by his parents and on the direction of his parents Mukesh Sao left the village. The case was instituted after four months of the alleged occurrence. 3. Learned Counsel Mr. Deepak Kumar submitted at the outset that admittedly the Petitioner was juvenile, below eighteen years of age and his prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Koderma by simply observing that his release would be hazardous to his moral, physical or psychological development. Petitioner had preferred appeal but the learned Sessions Judge also refused the bail of the Petitioner observing, in view of certain paragraphs of the case diary that the release of the Petitioner on bail would defeat the ends of justice and the social investigation report submitted by the Probation Officer indicated that the father of the Petitioner had already fled away from his house and was traceless and there was no guardian to take care of him. 4. Mr. Deepak Kumar further submitted that father of the Petitioner had filed an affidavit and had undertaken before the Sessions Judge that he would take care of his son and similar affidavit has been filed before this Court. 5. 4. Mr. Deepak Kumar further submitted that father of the Petitioner had filed an affidavit and had undertaken before the Sessions Judge that he would take care of his son and similar affidavit has been filed before this Court. 5. I find from the orders, referred to hereinbefore, recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Sessions Judge, that both the Courts overlooked the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 wherein bail of the juvenile has been guaranteed whereas its denial is exception. I find that case of the Petitioner does not come within the exception clause of Section 12 of the Act. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner, Mukesh Sao @ Mukesh Kumar Sao is directed to be released on executing bail bond of Rs. 10000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Koderma with the conditions that the parents of the Petitioner would be his bailors who would take care of him and produce before the Juvenile Justice Board in the first week of every month or on the date suggested by the Juvenile Justice Board in each month until conclusion of the inquiry. 7. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed. Petition allowed.