JUDGMENT : V.K. BIST, J. 1. The criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist for quashing the judgment and order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the learned FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2018, “Imran Vs. State” whereby the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar in which the Board has rejected the application of the revisionist for bail under Sections 363, 366, 376, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 138 of 2017, relating to offences punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act. The revisionist moved the bail application before the learned Juvenile Justice Board; but, the same was rejected vide order dated 08.01.2018. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Courts below has erred in law while refusing bail to the revisionist and overlooked that as per Section 12 of the Act, the bail to the accused can only be refused when there are possibility that accused can further indulge in criminal activity or can remain in touch of anti-social elements. He submitted that in the present case, the crime alleged against the applicant is not such a nature, on the basis of which, the revisionist can remain in touch of anti-social elements or criminals. He further submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in a mechanical manner and are based on surmises and conjectures. 3. He submitted that in the present case, the crime alleged against the applicant is not such a nature, on the basis of which, the revisionist can remain in touch of anti-social elements or criminals. He further submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in a mechanical manner and are based on surmises and conjectures. 3. Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, provides that when any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. 4. Thus, as per Section 12 (1) of the Act, the revisionist shall be subject to the condition mentioned in the Act. In the present case, admittedly, the revisionist is a Juvenile. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the family members of the revisionist have no criminal history. Parents of the revisionist are ready to keep revisionist with them and are ready to give undertaking. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the learned FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2018, is set aside. 6. Let revisionist Imran be released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each of the like amount by his natural guardian and father to the satisfaction of learned FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO, Udham Singh Nagar. His father shall also submit an undertaking that the Juvenile will remain in his custody.