JUDGMENT : P.K. LOHRA, J. Petitioner, a child in conflict with law facing delinquency for offences under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 & 11/12 of the POCSO Act, has laid this revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2015 (for short, ‘the Act of 2015’) challenging order dated 3rd of January 2018 passed by the Special Court, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur (for short, ‘appellate Court’) upholding order dated 19th of December, 2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur (for short, ‘the Board’). 2. At the threshold, on being apprehended for aforesaid offences, juvenile applied for bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before the Board through his natural guardian mother, Smt. Sumitra as his father is not alive. The Board after considering the application declined his prayer. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 before the appellate Court, but his that effort also proved abortive. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned order, case diary and report of the Probation Officer. 5. After going through case diary, more particularly, statement of prosecutrix (minor) recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and report of Probation Officer, it is borne out that petitioner and the prosecutrix were known to each other and the said liaison continued even after marriage of the girl. Statement of the prosecutrix (minor) recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. also reveals that she has gone with petitioner of her own volition though she has alleged that she was subjected to rape by the petitioner. That apart, report of the Probation officer indicates that juvenile is not in company of known criminals or his release on bail would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. The financial condition of the family is also normal and his father is also not alive. Therefore, in that background, I am inclined to invoke rigor envisage under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 for exercising discretion in his favour and I am convinced that both the courts below have not examined prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail in right perspective. 6. Therefore, in that background, I am inclined to invoke rigor envisage under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 for exercising discretion in his favour and I am convinced that both the courts below have not examined prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail in right perspective. 6. A child in conflict with law cannot be denied bail solely on the basis of serious delinquency and strictly speaking embargo in the matter of grant of bail envisage under Cr. P.C. cannot be pressed into service. Therefore, in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I feel persuaded to interfere with the orders passed by the appellate Court as well as the Board. 7. Resultantly both the impugned orders are, hereby, quashed and set aside and the revision petition is allowed. As a consequence thereof, petitioner-juvenile, Bhavesh S/o Late Shri Ratan Lal, is ordered to be released on bail provided requisite bail bond is furnished by his guardian - mother Smt. Sumitra in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur with further stipulation that she 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.