JUDGMENT Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J. - This criminal appeal u/s 101(5) Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as Act 2015) has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jabalpur in Session Trial No. 174/2019 rejecting bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C filed by the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 376(A)(B), 452 and 354 IPC as well as Section 5 read with Section 6 of Pocso Act, 2012. 2. As per prosecution case, a complaint has been lodged by prosecutrix-A at police station Belbag against the appellant stating that on 11.05.2019 at about 3.30 pm, she went to house of one Aasiya aunty for watching television, the appellant also entered into house and caught hold her hand forcefully with bad intention. Thereafter, she released her hand and went away. Thereafter, she saw the appellant taking prosecutrix-B aged 5 years into the house on his lap. Further, she saw that the appellant was penetrating his finger into private part of prosecutix-B. Thereafter, appellant fled away from the spot after hearing shought. Learned Juvenile Justice Board found the case under purview of heinous offence, hence, after conducting preliminary assessment, the Board decided that there is a need for trial of said child as an adult, then Board transferred the case to the Children's Court as per Section 18(3) of Act 2015. It is pertinent to mention that earlier the appellant has also filed Cr.R. No. 3461/2019 challenging the rejection order of bail dated 03.07.2019 passed by 15th Additional Sessions, Judge, Jabalpur in Cr.A. No. 139/2019 arising out of order dated 30.05.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Jabalpur which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court below failed to consider the procedure for consideration of bail application of juvenile as well as principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard. He further submits that there is change in circumstances in the case as statement of prosecution witness Durga Burman (PW-1) and complainant (PW-2) has been recorded by the trial Court. He further submits that there is change in circumstances in the case as statement of prosecution witness Durga Burman (PW-1) and complainant (PW-2) has been recorded by the trial Court. He also submits that it is settled principle of law about the bail of Juvenile that the gravity of offence is immaterial for rejecting bail even then the Court below rejected the same on the ground of seriousness of crime. Appellant had no intention or motive to commit such crime and he has been falsely implicated in the case. With the aforesaid, he prays for allowing this appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the arguments submitting that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts while rejecting bail application. He further submits that The Hon'ble Supreme Court in some of the case, has brought due concern in matters relating to juveniles where the offences are heinous like rape, murder, gang-rape etc., and, has indicated that in such matters, the nature and gravity of the offence would be relevant; the minor cannot get away by shielding himself behind veil of minority . With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for dismissal of this appeal. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 6. On perusal of impugned order, it appears that the appellant approached the learned Children Court filing the application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the learned Children Court has rejected the same considering the gravity of offence. Under Act 2015, Section 12 prescribed the provision of bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law, there is no distinction or classification in the Act of 2015 with regard to a child (Juvenile) tried by the Board and the child tried as an adult for 'heinous offences' by children's Court. In the case of Vinay @ Wiliam Felix (Minor) Vs. State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C No. 54552/2019, the co-ordinate bench of this Court has discussed the law in details expressing its acceptance with the view taken by Patna High Court in the case of Rajan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar passed in Cr.A. (SJ) No. 2117/2019 decided on 30.09.2019. The Court has held as under : "18. This Court fully agrees with the view taken by the Divisional Bench of the Patna High Court. State of Bihar passed in Cr.A. (SJ) No. 2117/2019 decided on 30.09.2019. The Court has held as under : "18. This Court fully agrees with the view taken by the Divisional Bench of the Patna High Court. So, on the basis of above discussion this Court holds that the grant of bail to a juvenile is required to be dealt with under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and not under Sections 437 or 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The powers of grant of bail to a person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non bailable offence, conferred on the Board under Section 12 of the Act 2015 are also available to the Children's Court when the proceedings come before it under Section 19 or in the appeal. Against an order granting or refusing bail passed by the Children's Court, no application for bail or cancellation of bail under Section 439(1) or 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. shall lie before the High Court and against such an order only an appeal under Section 101(5) of the Act of 2015 would be maintainable." 7. In view of this the application for grant of bail filed by the applicant (Juvenile in conflict with law) under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable. 8. Here in the case, admittedly the Court below has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C whereas the grant of bail to a juvenile is required to be dealt with under Section 12 of Act 2015. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion, the impugned order is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside with a direction to decide afresh in view of the provision of Section 12 of Act, 2015 if the appellant files application in this regard. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed off with the direction as aforesaid.