JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 22.12.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Alwar whereby the appeal filed by the juvenile-petitioner Vishnu Yadav under Section 101 of Juvenile Justice Act has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner submits that the juvenile-petitioner has been detained in observation home since 4.9.2017. He further submits that the trial is going on before the learned Juvenile Board. Statement of prosecutrix has been recorded as PW-3, wherein she has stated that juvenile- petitioner Vishnu has not done anything wrong with her. She has also stated that name of Vishnu has been stated only because the place of occurrence belongs to the family of Vishnu. Counsel further submits that the co-accused namely Sunil Yadav has already been enlarged on bail. He has further contented that the gravity and nature of offence is not relevant while deciding the bail application as per the provisions contained in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer. 4. From, the perusal of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2000, it is established legal position that a delinquent juvenile ordinarily has to be released on bail irrespective of nature of offence alleged to have been committed by him unless it is shown by evidence that if he is released on bail, there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the delinquent juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The nature of offence and the merits of the case do not have any relevance. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material while opposing the bail and make out any of the grounds provided in the section, which may persuade the Court not release the juvenile on bail. But in this case, there is nothing on record to show that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 5. In view of whatever is stated above, the revision petition deserves to be allowed. 5. In view of whatever is stated above, the revision petition deserves to be allowed. It is directed that if the father of the juvenile-petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar then the juvenile-petitioner Vishnu Yadav be released on bail. 6. The revision petition stands allowed.