JUDGMENT : 1. This Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners/juvenile against the impugned order dated 07.12.2016 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Criminal Appeal No. 84/2016 by which Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of present petitioners and affirmed the impugned order of bail rejection on application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 dated 21.11.2016 passed by Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dholpur in FIR No. 206/2016 registered at Police Station Sepau, District Dholpur for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 504, 506, 302 IPC. 2. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are minor girls and they have been implicated falsely in this case. Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dholpur dismissed the application seeking bail under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act on the ground that there is reasonable apprehension that the release is likely to bring them into association with any known criminal or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger. He submits that there is no material for such apprehension and without any material rejection of bail is not sustainable. He submits that Section 12 of the Act of 2015 is mandatory, petitioners are in custody since 08.12.2016, investigation has been completed, charge sheet has already been filed and co-accused Murari, Smt. Sharda and Smt. Muni have already been released on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, therefore this Revision Petition may be allowed and impugned orders may be quashed and set aside and application seeking bail under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 may be allowed. 3. Learned PP Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore and Learned Counsel for complainant Mr. Asgar Khan opposed the Revision Petition and supported the impugned orders and submitted that this Revision Petition may be dismissed. 4. I have considered the submissions made at bar. 5. Grant of bail to juvenile in conflict with law is engrafted under Section 12 of The Act of 2015. In the present case, the petitioners have been subjected to proceedings and application for grant of bail has been moved under Section 12 of the Act of 2015. 6. Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as under :- “12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law. 6. Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as under :- “12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law. - (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or 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 or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub- section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order. (4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail” 7. From the perusal of aforesaid provision, it reveals that nature and gravity of offence is not relevant consideration while deciding the application for grant of bail filed by juvenile in conflict with law. From the perusal of aforesaid provision, it reveals that nature and gravity of offence is not relevant consideration while deciding the application for grant of bail filed by juvenile in conflict with law. Not only that, grant of bail is rule and rejection is exception only when one of the grounds enumerated under Section 12 of the Act are made out, which are as under :- (a) that release of Juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or, (b) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, (c) that his release would otherwise defeat the ends of justice. 8. The grounds which have been stated under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 are exhaustive and not inclusive so as to say that the application could be rejected for grounds or other grounds other than which have been mentioned in the Act of 2015. When application under Section 12 of The Act of 2015 is filed before the Board for grant of bail, approach has to be different from the approach of the Courts. While considering the application for grant of bail under Section 437, 438 and 439 Cr.P.C., the legislature has purposely gave over riding effect of the provisions of the Act of 2015 by clearly mentioning in Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 that :- “notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, the juvenile shall be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person”, 9. By way of such proviso, the exception of grounds which can be made a basis to reject the application have been exhaustively mentioned, therefore the approach while considering the applications for grant of bail under Section 437, 438 and 439 Cr.P.C. is as to why the applicants should be granted bail whereas while considering the application for grant of bail on behalf of juvenile, in conflict with law under the provisions of the Act of 2015 or for that matter the approach should be as to why there should be refusal. 10. 10. The Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court are required to look more into the aspects which may be relevant with reference to three grounds namely likelihood of association with non-criminals, likelihood of moral, physical or psychological danger and likelihood to defeat the ends of justice, rather than searching into merits of the case or nature and gravity of allegations. 11. The report of probation officer assumes great importance because it contains social investigation report of the child in conflict with law, the police station where the offence has been registered, may also be placed before the Juvenile Justice Board, any material relevant for deciding whether any ground is made out to reject the application which are mentioned in the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act of 2015. Once, those grounds are not made out, only consequence is release of the juvenile, rejection of application for grant of bail by making a detailed inquiry into nature and gravity of allegations would be completely contrary to statutory mandate of the Section 12 of the Act of 2015. 12. If order impugned in the present case is scrutinized in the light of the principles as discussed above, it would defeat the ends of justice, appears to be guided by one circumstance i.e. gravity of the offence, the Appellate Authority relies on the same circumstance but to come to the conclusion that the release would bring the applicants into association with criminals and expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger. 13. I have perused the available record and from any other material or circumstance placed on record there is no material to come to the conclusion that release of the applicants would either bring them in association with known criminals or expose them to psychological danger or would otherwise defeat the ends of justice. In absence of any such ground appearing, the applicants are entitled for grant of bail. 14. In view of above consideration, in the present case, considering that the petitioners are juvenile and there is no material either in the report of the probation officer or any other material placed before the Board or before of the Appellate Court that their release is likely to bring them in association with known criminals or subject them to moral, physical or psychological danger or would otherwise defeat the ends of justice, juveniles have to be granted bail. 15. 15. In view of above consideration, impugned orders cannot be sustained and they are therefore set aside. The application under Section 12 of The Act of 2015 is allowed. 16. The applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing of personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) each by the parents or guardian of the applicants with two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the Learned Juvenile Justice Board for their personal appearance before the Board as and when directed. The Revision Petition is accordingly allowed.