JUDGMENT 1. - The revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30.6.2011 whereby bail application of present petitioner juvenile has been dismissed. 2. The contention of the present petitioner is that the date of birth of the petitioner is 25.11.1990 and date of alleged incident is 19.4.2008. The petitioner was a juvenile at the time of incident. Girdharilal Meghwal lodged a written report against the present petitioner at P.S. Sadar, Jhunjhunu on which F.I.R. No. 69/2008 was registered for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) and 2(v) of the Scheduled Case/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered. He was arrested on 21.4.2008 and sent to the Children Home. He ran away from the children home on which a missing report was lodged. Again, he was arrested on 23.5.2011 and since then he is confined at Children Home, Jhunjhtulu. Hence, looking to the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, he should be released on bail. 3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that it is a case of rape with and child of 7 years and to release of the petitioner will defeat the ends of justice. The release of the petitioner will be a shock to the conscious of the society and would undermine the faith of the victim in judiciary. Therefore, the present petitioner should not be granted bail. 4. The provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act is as follows:- "12. 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, notwithstanding 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 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 psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. (2) When such person having been arrested 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 committing 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." 5. A bare reading of this provision goes to show that bail is rule under this provision and only under such circumstances enumerated in the provision, benefit of bail can be denied if it is shown that the juvenile keeps company with known or unknown criminals, or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 6. The contention of the present petitioner is that gravity of offence cannot be a ground for rejecting the bail applications and reliance has been placed on the decision rendered in the case of Subedar v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1383 and Santosh @ Dholiya v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1447. 7. There is no dispute about this legal position but in the present case, where rape has been committed on a victim aged 7 years, release of petitioner on bail would definitely defeat the ends of justice. 'Justice' means justice to every party before the Court, whether it is accused or victim and society in general and, therefore, the judiciary must keep a balance between interest of the individual accused and simultaneously the interest of the victim and the society, it is true that the gravity of offence cannot be a determining factor while considering the bail application of a juvenile but while trying to administer justice, the Court must be conscious of the nature of the offence and special facts of the case also go to show that the present petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail as he has been absconding from the children home. He has been declared absconder and after issuance of permanent arrest warrant, he has been arrested and coupled with the fact that the determination of age is still pending consideration before the trial Court, he is not entailed to be released on bail. 8. Hence looking at the above, it is not a fit case to release the present petitioner on bail. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed.Revision Petition dismissed. *******