JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against the order dated 19.12.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Appeal No.90/2014 whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Churu rejecting the application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act In FIR No.239/2014, P.S. Hamirwas, District Churu has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Kumari Kavlta precented herself before the SHO, P.S. Hamir was on 17.09.2014 and submitted a written report alleging inter alia that on 10.09.2014, when she was coming from her school, then petitioner accused Praveen met her and told that her father has met with an accident and has been taken to Pilani and she has also been called at Pilani. On this, she proceeded to Pilani with the petitioner-accused where one Pramod also met them who asked them to first go to the home and then to the hospital. When they reached at the home, they closed the door and committed rape with her. Thereafter, she returned to her home. Later, when she realised that this will encourage the accused, therefore, she lodged the complaint. 3. On this report, FIR No.239/2014 was registered at P.S., Hamirwas, District Churu and investigation commenced and after completion of investigation the petitioner was arrested and since he was minor he was sent to Juvenile Home. The father of the petitioner preferred an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for releasing him on bail but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2014. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal but the same has also been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu vide order dated 19.12.2014. Hence, this revision petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a juvenile of age. He further submits that the gravity of offence cannot be considered against the juvenile and both the learned courts below, after considering the gravity of offence and the fact that after release, he may come in association with hardened criminal which would defeat the ends of justice, dismissed his bail application. Therefore, this revision petition may be allowed and the petitioner-juvenile may be released on bail. Therefore, this revision petition may be allowed and the petitioner-juvenile may be released on bail. He has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of Kalamuddin v. State of U.P. & Anr. [2010 Cr.L.J.(NOC) 653 (All.)] and Bhurey alias Rajesh Singh v. The State of U.P. & Anr. [2010 Cr.L.J. (NOC) 937 (All.)] . 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition in general. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar. 7. In the case of Bhurey Khan alias Rajesh Singh (supra), it was held as under:- "According to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of Act, a Juvenile shall be released on bail with or without surety notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force. The first part of the provisions appears to be mandatory in nature for release of Juvenile on bail but the second part also equally appears to be mandatory for refusing bail, as Juvenile shall not be so released if there appears reasonable ground for believing that: 1. release of juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or 2. expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or 3. that his release would defeat ends of justice, and in such cases gravity of offence is not relevant factor. Therefore, where in offence of rape accused was declared as juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board and no material was placed before Court that release of accused is likely to bring into association with any criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat ends of justice, order refusing bail to him would be improper." In the case of Kalamuddin (supra), it was held as under:- "Nothing on record to show that release on bail of accused would expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or that their release would defeat ends of justice. Simply incorporating grounds mentioned in Section 12(1) without any basis of evidence or material is not sufficient to refuse bail." 8. Simply incorporating grounds mentioned in Section 12(1) without any basis of evidence or material is not sufficient to refuse bail." 8. This court also, in catena of decisions, while relying upon the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') has held that bail to the juvenile can only be refused if anyone of the grounds envisaged in Section 12 of the Act exists and so far as gravity is concerned, it is not covered under Section 12 of the Act. It was also observed that the Parliament reconsidered the entire matter and repealed the old Act of 1986 by introducing new Act No. 56 of 2000, raising the age from 16 to 18 years and this was done keeping in view the welfare of the child so that even after committing an offence, a; child may not become a hardened criminal but he may reform himself. So far as the ground of dismissal of bail application on the ground that his release may bring the juvenile into association with known criminal is concerned, this court, while considering the definition of the word "association" held that the single instance of a child delinquent joining the company of some known criminal or criminals would not be sufficient to satisfy the definition of the word "association" used in Section 12 of the Act and if his past conduct has been of such a nature, which indicates his continuous association with known criminal or criminals, then there would be justification for inferring that there would be likelihood that his release may bring him in association with known criminals and would defeat the ends of justice. 9. In the case in hand, the report of the Probation Officer was called and perused, wherein nothing adverse was reported against the petitioner nor it was reported that his past conduct was of such a nature which could indicate his continuous association with known criminal or criminals. 10. Both the courts below rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of gravity of the offence and that his release may bring him in association with hardened criminals which may put his life into danger and that would defeat the ends of justice. 11. 10. Both the courts below rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of gravity of the offence and that his release may bring him in association with hardened criminals which may put his life into danger and that would defeat the ends of justice. 11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any special reason to hold that there is any possibility that on his release, the petitioner may come in association with hardened criminals which may put his life into danger which would defeat the ends of justice. 12. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.12.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu as well as the order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Churu are hereby quashed. 13. Let the revisionist Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Kamal Singh be released on, bail In the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond amounting to Rs. 50,000/- by his natural guardian, father, with two solvent sureties amounting to Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Churu with stipulation that the revisionist juvenile will be produced on each and every date of hearing before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Churu or where the case is being transferred and whenever called upon to do so. Further, he, along with members of family will keep a watch over the juvenile that he may not indulge in any other criminal activity.Revision allowed. *******