JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - Petitioner-juvenile has preferred this revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Pprotection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, 'Act of 2015') to challenge order dated 17th of April, 2018, passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Bikaner (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby learned appellate Court has rejected his appeal under Section 101 of the Act of 2015. 2. At the threshold, pursuant to FIR No.31/2018, registered at Police Station Panchu, District Bikaner, petitioner was apprehended for offences punishable under Section 306 IPC & 3/8 and 11/12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. On behalf of petitioner, an endeavour was made for seeking bail before Juvenile Justice Board (for short, 'learned Board'), but considering serious delinquency of the petitioner, his bail plea is declined by learned Board. 3. Feeling dismayed with the order passed by learned Board, petitioner approached learned appellate Court, but that effort also did not fructify to his advantage and the learned appellate Court, while concurring with the order of learned Board, rejected the appeal. Learned appellate Court observed that in case petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may come in contact with known or unknown criminals, which would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. 4. The matter came up before the Court on 26th of May, 2018 and learned Public Prosecutor was directed to procure report of the Probation Officer. Upon receipt of report of the Probation Officer, the Court passed following order on 4th of May, 2018 :- "I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, before deciding the matter finally, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to place the petitioner-juvenile under supervision of Probation officer for a period of a fortnight. Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to submit report of Probation Officer about conduct of petitioner-juvenile during the interregnum period. List on 21.05.2018." 5. In compliance of the order, requisite report of the Probation Officer was not submitted despite many adjournments, and therefore, on 29th of May, 2018, the Probation Officer was directed to remain present before the Court. 6. Today, Probation Officer, Mr. List on 21.05.2018." 5. In compliance of the order, requisite report of the Probation Officer was not submitted despite many adjournments, and therefore, on 29th of May, 2018, the Probation Officer was directed to remain present before the Court. 6. Today, Probation Officer, Mr. Mahesh Kumar, is present in person and has shown his remorse for not sending the report in time. The Probation Officer has submitted report today highlighting the conduct of petitioner-juvenile in the interregnum period, during which he remained under his supervision in compliance of order dated 4th of May, 2018. As per report, conduct of the juvenile is satisfactory. The Probation Officer has also opined that in case petitioner-juvenile is allowed to be mingled with his family, then it will be in his best interest. 7. I have heard father of the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record including report of the Probation Officer and report dated 31st of May, 2018. 8. After considering the materials available on record, in my view, bail cannot be denied to juvenile-petitioner solely on the basis of seriousness of delinquency. While it is true that learned appellate Court has observed that releasing the petitioner on bail would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger but the reasons spelt out for this sort of apprehension are not based on available materials and the report of the Probation Officer. 9. The said observation of learned appellate court is per-se based on mere ipse dixit. 10. The law mandates that until and unless juvenile has incurred any disqualification within the four corners of proviso to subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 2015, he is entitled for grant of bail. On overall analysis, in my opinion, no such embargo for grant of bail in the instant case is forthcoming. 11. Resultantly, both the impugned orders are, hereby, annulled and the revision petition is allowed. As a consequence thereof, petitioner-juvenile, Sohan Lal S/o Shri Gomand Ram, is ordered to be released on bail provided requisite bail bond is furnished by his guardian - father Gomand Ram in a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner with further stipulation that he shall make sincere endeavour to present juvenile (petitioner) before the Board on each and every date of hearing and as and when he is called.