ORDER : 1. This revision is preferred against the order dated 17.10.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge FTFC Court (POCSO), Balod, District-Balod passed in Criminal Appeal No.43/2023 whereby the appeal filed under Section 101 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “Act of 2015”) was dismissed affirming the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, District- Balod dated 04.10.2023. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a minor girl aged about 16 years. She has been falsely implicated in the Crime No.121 of 2023 registered at Police Station-Dondilohara, District- Balod for alleged commission of offence under Sections 451, 354 354 (A), 376, 376 (2)(n), 342, 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Act, 2012. It is contended that the entire allegation of commission of offence is against co-accused Haresh Yadav. Applicant being minor, her case is to be considered by the Juvenile Justice Board under the Act of 2015. Application under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 was moved before the Juvenile Justice Board which was erroneously dismissed on 04.10.2023. Learned Juvenile Justice Board has wrongly evaluated the Social Investigation Report submitted by the Probation Officer/Child Welfare Officer under Rules 10 (9), 11 (2), 64 (1), 64 (3) (i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016. Against the order passed by Juvenile Justice Board rejecting application under Section 12 of the Act of 2015, applicant preferred an appeal under Section 101 (1) of the Act of 2015. Learned appellate Court also dismissed the appeal observing that indulging of the applicant in similar nature of offence again is not ruled out. This finding recorded by the appellate Court is contrary to the Social Investigation Report submitted by the Probation Officer/Child Welfare Officer and it is only on the basis of presumption and surmises. Applicant is a student studying in Class-11th and if the applicant is not granted bail, her study would be adversely affected. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order. He would submit that the Juvenile Justice Board as also the appellate Court, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, has passed the order Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2 which does not call for any interference. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order. He would submit that the Juvenile Justice Board as also the appellate Court, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, has passed the order Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2 which does not call for any interference. 4. Victim along with her mother is present before this Court through virtual mode from DLSA-Balod. They raised an objection in grant of bail to applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed before this Court including the case diary. 6. In the case diary, the Social Investigation Report is available submitted before the Juvenile Justice Board which is dated 04.10.2023. Perusal of the Social Investigation Report would show that the relationship of the applicant (Juvenile) with her Family Members to be friendly. Parents of the applicant has been shown to be educated up to 8th Class. They are religious and nothing adverse has been reported to the habit of the applicant. It is also mentioned that she is studying in Govt. Girls School Dondilohara in Class 11th. Her friend circle also shown to be educated, same age group and also elders and youngers. Social Welfare Officer in its report has also mentioned that at present, applicant is at Child Observation Home and he also opined that residing a child at the Observation Home may adversely affect her education and personality. 7. Provision of bail to a Child in conflict with law is provided under Section 12 (1) of the Act of 2015 which is relevant and therefore it is extracted below for ready reference:- “12. 7. Provision of bail to a Child in conflict with law is provided under Section 12 (1) of the Act of 2015 which is relevant and therefore it is extracted below for ready reference:- “12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law- (1) 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.” 8. Section 12 (1) of the Act of 2015 envisages that any person who is apparently a child and brought before the Board, such person shall be released on bail with or without surety or placed before the supervision of the Probation Officer. Under the proviso to sub-Section (1) of the Section 12 of the Act of 2015 bail can be denied only if there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said persons to moral, physical or psychological danger or the release of the person would defeat the ends of justice. The recommendation made by the Probation Officer/Child Welfare Officer does not suggest that release of the applicant would defeat the ends of justice. In fact, the Probation Officer opined that living of the applicant in the Child Welfare Home will adversely affect her studies and personality. 9. The recommendation made by the Probation Officer/Child Welfare Officer does not suggest that release of the applicant would defeat the ends of justice. In fact, the Probation Officer opined that living of the applicant in the Child Welfare Home will adversely affect her studies and personality. 9. Considering the mandate of Section 12 of the Act of 2015, in absence of there being any material to show that there is likelihood that release of the applicant on bail will bring her in association with some known criminals and may also expose her to moral, physical or psychological danger or that her release would defeat the ends of justice, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 10. Resultantly, this revision is allowed and the orders impugned passed by the appellate Court and the Juvenile Justice Board are hereby quashed. It is ordered that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- by her father with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Balod for her appearance before it. It is further directed that it shall be duty of the father of the applicant to produce her before the Juvenile Justice Board as and when directed by it and he shall take proper care that the applicant does not come into association of any person of criminal background. Certified copy as per rules.