ORDER : 1. By way of preferring this Criminal Revision Application, juvenile delinquent through his father (hereinafter referred as “the applicant”) has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2019 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ahmedabad in Juvenile Inquiry Case No.627 of 2019 as well as impugned judgment and order 22.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. 2. The brief facts are as under: As per say of the complainant, one incident of murder had occurred at the opposite direction of Prerna Seva Trust and name of the complainant came to be disclosed and the complainant also released on regular bail. With regard to this incident, there is grievance and thereafter, some other persons namely Mayank Natubhai Ravat, Jigar Baba and one unknown person had come and given threats about dire consequences. Thereafter, the complaint had gone to his office and some persons had gathered and upon going over there, it came to know that Mehul @ Pravinbhai Ramanlalbhai Ravat was lying in profusely bleeding condition and it also appears that there was bleeding on account of sustaining injuries with sharp weapon. 3. With regard to this incident, complaint came to be registered being C.R. No.-I.-141 of 2019 with Vadaj Police Station, District-Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 114, 506(2), 294 (Kh), 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the G.P. Act on 27.06.2019. 4. That, after registration of the F.I.R. , the Investigating Officer had carried out investigation and during the investigation, name of the applicant/accused was arrested and thus, he came to be arrested on 29.06.2019. That, since the applicant/accused is not major (below age 18 years) and the applicant/accused had gone to Zonal Observation Home cum Place of Safety Home, Mehsana. 5. That, applicant/accused had preferred an application seeking regular bail before the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ahmedabad in Juvenile Inquiry. Heard learned advocate for the applicant, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 as well as learned APP for the respondent-State. 6. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that name of the applicant is not mentioned in the F.I.R. That, accused is not major and living in observation home since his arrest. Heard learned advocate for the applicant, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 as well as learned APP for the respondent-State. 6. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that name of the applicant is not mentioned in the F.I.R. That, accused is not major and living in observation home since his arrest. He further submits that applicant was only driving the activa two wheeler and thereafter, the applicant had caught hold hands of one person namely Mehul which accompanies coaccused to cause stab injuries, however, the applicant is not the person who caused any injuries. He further submitted that no activa came to be recovered from the applicant. Hence, it was requested by leaned advocate for the applicant to allow this criminal revision application. 7. Learned APP for the respondent-State as well as learned advocate for the respondent No.2 have strongly opposed the submissions made by leaned advocate for the applicant and argued that as per the police papers involvement of the present applicant is clearly made out. Referring statements of the witnesses namely Anilbhai Dhulabhai Chauhan, Kanu alias Bosiyo, Aartiben, Shardaben, Nandaben, Aakash alias Bhuro and other witnesses it is argued that they have seen the present appellant and another co-accused assaulted by weapon of knife on the vital part of the deceased. Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has further submitted that no grounds are raised in the revision application by the present applicant, that how the order passed by the Appellate Court is illegal or erroneous. Referring ground No.H, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has submitted that as per the averments, applicant was studying in 12th standard and last date of examination was 07.12.2019. That, today statement of examination produced by the applicant is different from the averments made in ground No.H, which was falsely filled in statement of examination produced on record. That heinous offence is committed by the present applicant and if he would be released on bail the complainant as well as prosecution witnesses would be tampered with by him. Age of the victim-applicant is 17 years 5 months and he may be treated as an adult person. That, no lenient view can be taken by this Court. Ultimately, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent-State as well as learned advocate for the respondent No.2 to dismiss the application. 8. Age of the victim-applicant is 17 years 5 months and he may be treated as an adult person. That, no lenient view can be taken by this Court. Ultimately, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent-State as well as learned advocate for the respondent No.2 to dismiss the application. 8. Having gone through the materials placed on record and submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears that, complaint was lodged on 27.06.2019 against 3 persons namely Mayank Natubhai Ravat, Narendra Bababhai Ravat and Aanand alias Kallu Bababhai Ravat,. From the contents of the complaint involvement of the present appellant was not shown by the complainant. Deceased-Mehul @ Pravinbhai Ramanlalbhai Ravat was found by the complainant in an unconscious manner with a heavy bleeding. As per the averments made in the complaint, on account of previous enmity between the Mayank Natubhai Ravat with deceased- Mehul his murder was committed by giving blow of sharp weapon on his chest. During the course of investigation, police has recorded the statements of the witnesses wherein they have confirmed the presence of the present applicant saying that present applicant was driving activa and caught hold the deceased. The other co-accused namely Mayank Natubhai Ravat blowed with a knife on his chest and they have committed murder. Age of the present applicant appears to be 17 years 5 months at the time of committing the offence. Under Section 12 of in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, when any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) 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 institution of fit person but he shall not be so released if there appear 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 the ends of justice. 9. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Gopinath Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal, 1984 (1) RCR (Criminal) 444 has observed that rejection can only be in a case there are reasonable grounds to believe that release of juvenile is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. 10. Learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the prayer made by the present applicant, aspect as provided under Section 12 of the Act has not considered or not opined that there exist such circumstances which are sufficient to decline the request for bail of the juvenile, however, as the serious offence was committed by the present applicant. 11. Considering the age of the applicant and Section 12 of the Act, this Court is of the view, that prayer made by present applicant requires for consideration, as there is no possibility of bring the applicant in the association with any unknown criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. 12. Interim relief sought for in para 7 (B) and (C) stands granted. Prayer of granting bail, made by the applicant rejected by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.627 of 2019 on 30.09.2019 and confirmed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.655 of 2019 on 22.10.2019 stands quashed and set aside. The applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail on subject to the conditions that applicant shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave India without prior permission of the concerned Trial Court; [e] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; [f] shall not enter into Ahmedabad City for a period of six month except to his mark presence and to attend the court proceedings; 13. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. 14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.