JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner (juvenile-through his natural guardian) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C. and under Section 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Udaipur was rejected vide order dated 4.5.2018. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge 'Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act' Udaipur and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 9.5.2018. 3. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 4.5.2018 and 9.5.2018 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that petitioner is below 18 years of age and he has been falsely involved in the case without any material evidence. Counsel for the petitioner/revisionist submits that the specific allegation for committing rape is against Sunil. Counsel further submits that there is no evidence to show that if the juvenile-petitioner is released on bail, then his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is argued that learned Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the petitioner is juvenile and entitled to get benefit of provisions of the Act of 2015. Section 12 of the Act of 2015 clearly provides that if the accused is juvenile, then he should be released on bail, but learned Courts below fully ignored the provisions of the Act of 2015. The petitioner is in custody since long time and no further detention of the petitioner is required for any purpose. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. Challan of the case has already been filed and no investigation is pending against the petitioner. On perusal of challan paper, it is revealed that no specific role has been assigned to present petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. Challan of the case has already been filed and no investigation is pending against the petitioner. On perusal of challan paper, it is revealed that no specific role has been assigned to present petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the petitioner as also the judgment passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2015. 7. The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 conveys the intention of the Legislature to grant bail to the juvenile, irrespective of nature or gravity of the offence, alleged to have been committed by him and bail can be denied only in the case where there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release 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 ends of justice. 8. In this context, I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the Courts below. 9. Having carefully examined provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act vis-a-vis the orders passed by the Courts below, I do not find that any of the exceptional circumstances, to decline bail to a juvenile, as indicated in Section 12 of the Act of 2015, is made out. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 4.5.2018 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Udaipur as well as order dated 9.5.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Jaipur, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside. 11. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri 5anglal Dagacha shall be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (father), in the sum of Rs. 11. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri 5anglal Dagacha shall be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (father), in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) long with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Udaipur; with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall appear before the said Court or any other Court, during pendency of the investigation/trial in the case and that their guardian shall keep proper look after of the delinquent child and secure them sway from the company of known criminals. Record of the Trial Court be sent back immediately.