JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. Issue notice Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice. With the consent-of the parties, the revision is finally decided. 3. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner through his natural guardian mother Smt. Sita under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 challenging the order dated 30.8.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Jodhpur whereby he rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.7.2012 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for his release to his guardian mother Smt. Sita. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code. 4. Assailing the orders impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 4.7.2012 and charge-sheet has been filed in the matter. He contends that the petitioner as well as the prosecutrix are residents of the same village and they eloped from the village and went to Gujarat and stayed there for about 20 days. He contends that there it is alleged that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible intercourse. He submits that the prosecutrix went with the accused willingly and contracted consensual sexual intercourse. Pie has referred to the medico legal report of the prosecutrix as per which, no marks of violence have been found on the body of the prosecutrix particularly on her private parts. He has also referred to the report of Superintendent, Juvenile Home which shows that the conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory and an opinion has been given that no risk is involved in the event of the petitioner being directed to be released from Juvenile home. He further contends that the trial/enquiry of the case is likely to take a long time. He, therefore, prays that the revision petition be allowed and the petitioner be released to the guardianship of his mother during the pendency of the trial/enquiry. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have carefully perused the orders impugned and the record of the case. 7. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have carefully perused the orders impugned and the record of the case. 7. I laving regard to the facts and circumstance of the case and looking to the report of Probation Officer available on record as well as the medico legal report of the prosecutrix and considering the fact that the prosecutrix has stayed with the petitioner at Gujarat for 22 days and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court feels that there are justifiable reasons for directing the release of juvenile to the guardianship of his mother Smt. Sita. 8. Accordingly, the revision petition succeeds, the order dated 30.8.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Jodhpur and the order dated 30.7.2012 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur are set aside and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur is directed to release the petitioner into the guardianship of his natural guardian mother Smt. Sita on the guardian executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur.Revision petition allowed. *******