JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal, J. Supplementary-affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist today in Court is taken on record. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record. No one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 inspite of sufficient service of notice. This criminal revision has been filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act challenging the judgment and order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2016, whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur refusing bail to the revisionist, has been dismissed. According to the prosecution case, the FIR was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 19.08.2016 making allegation that on 19.08.2016 at about 12.00 noon his neighbour Ravi Kumar took away his daughter to the sugarcane field and committed rape. The matter was investigated by the police and thereafter charge-sheet was filed. The revisionist claims himself to be a juvenile and by the order dated 08.11.2016 the Juvenile Justice Board found that his age at the time of occurrence was 15 years four months and twenty nine days. After being declared juvenile, the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board which was rejected by the order dated 23.11.2016. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Board, the revisionist preferred criminal appeal No. 88 of 2016 before the Sessions Judge, Sitapur which was also dismissed on 06.01.2017. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that although the revisionist has been charged with serious offence of rape but it is a settled law that gravity of the offence is not to be considered at the time of grant of bail to a juvenile. The only ground on which the bail to a juvenile can be refused are mentioned in Section 12 of the Act itself and in order attract any of the aforesaid grounds, there has to be some material before the court. The learned counsel has referred to the report of the District Probation Officer to show that the revisionist had no previous criminal history and there is no evidence to be show that he had any association of any criminal. The learned counsel has referred to the report of the District Probation Officer to show that the revisionist had no previous criminal history and there is no evidence to be show that he had any association of any criminal. In these circumstances, the revisionist should have been released on bail by the courts below. The learned counsel has referred to a judgment of this Court report in 2012 (77) ACC, page 869 in which a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that under Section 12 of the Act, the bail to a juvenile can be refused only if there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release of the revisionist 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. It has further been observed by the Co-ordinate Bench that the bail to a juvenile cannot be refused on the basis of surmises and conjectures. There must be some material to show that any of the ground exists believing that after being released on bail, the revisionist would come in association with criminals. The submission of the learned counsel is that it has not been indicated by any of the courts below as to how the release of the revisionist would defeat the ends of justice. There is also no material to attract any of the grounds mentioned in Section 12 of the Act. In these circumstances, the revisionist is liable to be released on bail. The learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the revision on the ground that although the revisionist is a juvenile but he has committed rape upon a girl who is aged about ten years. The medical examination report of the girl also reveals recent use of force. However, it has not been disputed that in the report of the District Probation Officer, there is nothing against the revisionist and there is also no material to show that the revisionist had any previous criminal history. Considering the aforesaid facts, the revision deserves to be allowed and the orders passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed and the orders passed by the courts below dated 06.01.2017 and 23.11.2016 are hereby set aside. Considering the aforesaid facts, the revision deserves to be allowed and the orders passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed and the orders passed by the courts below dated 06.01.2017 and 23.11.2016 are hereby set aside. The revisionist Ravi Kumar shall be released on bail forthwith subject to execution of personal bond by his legal guardian and one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned. The guardian of the revisionist shall also give an undertaking before the Board that he or she will keep control over the activities and behaviour of the revisionist till he attains majority.