ORDER : 1. With the consent of parties, case is heard finally. 2. Applicant has preferred this revision under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short ‘Act of 2000’) against the impugned order dated 27-5-2014 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No. 532/2013 affirming the order dated 19-5-2014 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhopal rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 375/2014 registered by Police Station, Jahangirabad, Bhopal under section 376(2), 324, 506/34, Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 22-4-2014 in the afternoon at about 2.30 p.m. one Anita took the prosecutrix for watching T.V. to the house of applicant/accused Ishan @ lucky and left her near the room of applicant/accused. At the same time applicant/ accused dragged her inside the room and committed rape upon her and made video of the incident. The applicant/accused threatened her of uploading the video on Internet in case she disclose the incident to anyone. The prosecutrix did not disclose the incident to her parents due to the threat given by the applicant. On 26-4-2014 again the applicant threatened the prosecutrix of making viral of the video on Internet then she disclosed the incident to her sister and mother. The prosecutrix along with her mother went to the house of the applicant/accused but the applicant abused her and burnt her hand and cheeks with ‘chimta’ and told them to leave the house. The prosecutrix with her mother lodged a report and the police registered a case against the applicant/accused under section 376(2), 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. After investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Court. 4 Initially mother as a natural guardian of the accused/ applicant has filed the bail application for grant of his custody before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board under section 12 of the Act, 2000. After investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Court. 4 Initially mother as a natural guardian of the accused/ applicant has filed the bail application for grant of his custody before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board under section 12 of the Act, 2000. The Principal Magistrate rejected the application for ‘Supurdginama’ by order dated 19-5-2014 against which an appeal has been preferred before the 14th Additional Judge, Bhopal which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 27-5-2014, against which this revision has been preferred, on the ground that the learned Juvenile Board and the Appellate Court committed error in rejecting the prayer of the applicant/accused, therefore order of the Board and appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is a young boy of 15 years old and if he resides in the judicial custody for long period, he may become an offender and prays for release of the applicant. The applicant and prosecutrix were residing in the same house since last many years because the mother of prosecutrix was tenant of the applicant's parent and thats why they meet daily and because of teenager they become close friend. It is also submitted that the report of Probationary Officer wherein it is stated that the prosecutrix was the tenant of the parents of the applicant/accused and because of non-payment of rent prosecutrix and her mother were ejected from the rented house. On the very day of incident, in the morning, there was quarrel between the prosecutrix's mother and applicant's mother. At that time applicant/accused expelled the prosecutrix from the house. Resultantly, this case has been registered by the prosecutrix against the applicant/ accused. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel also submitted that the gravity of offence is not a ground for rejection of bail/custody, therefore, prays to release the applicant/accused on supurdiginama. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submission and submits that there is clear allegation of commission of rape in the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. He also submits that allegations against the applicant is a serious offence which involves immoral act and if the applicant is released, there is every likelihood that he may be exposed to moral or psychological danger. 7. He also submits that allegations against the applicant is a serious offence which involves immoral act and if the applicant is released, there is every likelihood that he may be exposed to moral or psychological danger. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and the learned Govt. Advocate. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 reads as under:- “8. 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.” 8. The language of section 12 of the Act of 2000 conveys the intention of this legislature to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him and well can be defined only in the case where there appears 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 shall defeat the ends of justice. In this context I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the Courts below, FIR of the case as well as the report submitted by the Probationary Officer. 9. In this context I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the Courts below, FIR of the case as well as the report submitted by the Probationary Officer. 9. In the matter of Manoj Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (2) RCC 995, Lal Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 (1) RCC 167, Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 (1) RCC 337, Udaibhan Singh alias Bablu Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (4) Crimes 110, Vijay Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2005 (4) Crimes 649 and Rajkumar vs. State of M.P. 2008 (1) MPWN 94 , it has been held by the different High Courts that if there are no allegations that release of delinquent juvenile on bail shall bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release shall defeat the ends of justice, he deserves to be released on bail and merits or nature of the offence has no relevance while considering the bail application of delinquent juvenile. 10. On going through the aforesaid citations, the legal position of granting or rejecting bail to a delinquent juvenile is candidly clear. While considering the bail application to juvenile only enumerated in section 12 of the Act of 2000 should be seen and provisions of bail of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall not govern juvenile's bail application. Heinousness of offence is also has no relevance while considering the bail matter of a delinquent juvenile. 11. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material, including the report of the Probationary Officer to show that the release of the delinquent juvenile on bail is likely to bring him into the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. 12. On going through the impugned order it is revealed that on the basis of Juvenile Board's order, appellate Court held that if the petitioner is released on bail it would defeat the ends of justice. No reason has been assigned by the appellate Court in the impugned order to arrive at such conclusion that if petitioner, is released on bail, how it will defeat the ends of justice. 13. The report of the Probationary Officer reveals that the applicant/accused conduct is satisfactory and he belongs to a prosperous family. No reason has been assigned by the appellate Court in the impugned order to arrive at such conclusion that if petitioner, is released on bail, how it will defeat the ends of justice. 13. The report of the Probationary Officer reveals that the applicant/accused conduct is satisfactory and he belongs to a prosperous family. He has no criminal background and there is no likelihood of committing any offence. As per above discussion I am of the opinion that both the Courts below erred in rejecting the applicant's bail application. There was no possibility that if petitioner is released on bail, his release shall bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release shall defeat the ends of justice. Impugned order passed by the appellate Court and the orders passed by the Juvenile Board are not sustainable in law and both the Courts below committed jurisdictional error and legality in passing both the orders. 14. Consequently, revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 27-5-2014 passed by Appellate Court and the order dated 19-5-2014 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in Crime No. 375/14 are hereby set aside and it is directed that applicant/accused Ishan @ Lucky be released on bail on executing a personal bond by his natural guardian Mother Smt. Najma Khan in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhopal with the stipulation that on all the subsequent dates of hearing, she shall produce the delinquent juvenile before the said Board or any other Court during pendency of the inquiry and his guardian shall keep proper look-after of the juvenile delinquent and keep him away from the company of known criminals. 15. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.