JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioner being a child in conflict with law was confined and lodged at the Observation Home, Bhilwara in connection with FIR No.75/2019 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 344, 346, 376 (DB) and 120-B IPC and under Sections 3/4, 5(L)(F)/6 of the POCSO Act. The bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Section 12 of the of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act of 2015?) was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Paldi, Bhilwara vide order dated 24.07.2020. The appeal preferred on his behalf under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 has been dismissed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, No.1, Bhilwara. These two orders are assailed in this revision. 3. Shri Rakesh Matoria, learned counsel representing the petitioner urges that the child is confined in this case since 22.04.2019. Inquiry is not proceeding. He further points out that as a matter of fact, the petitioner and the victim were involved in a long-standing affair. The prosecution theory regarding the victim being 11 years of age is absolutely false. He thus urges that the petitioner deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the inquiry. 4. No one has appeared on behalf of the complainant to oppose the revision despite service. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner?s counsel. Nonetheless he too does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was a young boy aged less than 16 years on the date of the incident. He is confined at the Observation Home, Bhilwara for the last more than 2 years and 2 months. There appears to be a bleak possibility of conclusion of inquiry in near future looking to the prevailing pandemic situation as only five witnesses have been examined so far before the Juvenile Justice Board. As per the orders impugned in this revision, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. The Juvenile Justice Board, while rejecting the bail of the petitioner expressed that he may face moral, physical as well as psychological dangers if he is released on bail. However, there is no foundation for such apprehension. As per the orders impugned in this revision, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. The Juvenile Justice Board, while rejecting the bail of the petitioner expressed that he may face moral, physical as well as psychological dangers if he is released on bail. However, there is no foundation for such apprehension. Law is well settled that merely the gravity of allegations/offences cannot be a ground to deny bail to a child in conflict with law. 6. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf of the petitioner so also the order rejecting petitioner?s appeal, cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside. 7. Consequently, the instant revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.07.2020 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Paldi, District Bhilwara so also the order dated 29.07.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.1, Bhilwara are set aside and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner X (Sanjay) S/o Shri Ram Singh confined in connection with F.I.R. No.75/2019, P.S. Sadar, Bhilwara shall be released on bail; provided his natural guardian (father) Shri Ram Singh furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Kishore Nyay Board with the stipulation to appear before the Board on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.