ORDER : 1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent – State. 2. This application has been filed by the juvenile in conflict with law through his mother as a guardian under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereainafter referred to in short as the ‘JJ Act’) challenging the legality and the propriety of the order of the Juvenile Justice Board (for short ‘J.J. Board’) and the Children’s Court. 3. Mr. Kishan H.Daiya, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted both the courts have failed to appreciate section 12 of the J.J. Act and has erred in deciding the matter of the juvenile, as was dealing bail application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Advocate Mr. Daiya submitted that four of the major accused and three juveniles have been granted bail. 3.1 Advocate Mr. Daiya submitted that section 12 of the J.J. Act mandates despite anything contained in Cr.P.C. or under any law for the time being in force, juvenile 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. Advocate Mr. Daiya submitted that juvenile is entitled for bail and only on that very provision of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the J.J. Act, such person who was considered as juvenile in conflict with law shall not be released, if it appears a reasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to bring that person in 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. Advocate Mr. Daiya submitted that Board as well as Children’s Court was required to record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances, which led to such a decision. 3.2 Referring to the FIR, Advocate Mr. Daiya submitted that this denial of bail was alleged to be in the company of other co-accused, and the allegation was that, all of them had come with wooden stick and sharp weapon. Mr. 3.2 Referring to the FIR, Advocate Mr. Daiya submitted that this denial of bail was alleged to be in the company of other co-accused, and the allegation was that, all of them had come with wooden stick and sharp weapon. Mr. Daiya further stated that specific allegations have been made against all the co-accused regarding assault, and when the complainant had intervened to resolve the dispute, he is alleged to have received a blow with the wooden stick, and because of that assault, he started bleeding from his head, and at that time, the complainant’s brother, mother and sister had taken him back in the house. It is alleged that, at that time, Satish alias Kaliya had come there with sword in his hand and along with him Arjun Dubey and father of Satish Kaliya – Vijay Dubey, both had come with the wooden stick. 3.3 Advocate Mr. Daiya further submitted that one Rahul is stated to be armed with sword and Vipul Rathod with wooden stick and Ajay too with the wooden stick. Advocate Mr. Daiya submitted that it is also noted in the FIR that mother and sister of Satish Kaliya had also come at that place and when they had tried to escape, they had started beating them incessantly in the lobby with the weapons, which were in the arms. Thereafter, specifically it was noted that Aditya alias Raj had given a blow on the head of sister with wooden stick, and at that time, the complainant’s maternal cousin Milind Prakash Bhambre had come to that place, and thereafter Mr. Daiya submitted that is alleged that Vipul, Ajay, Satish Kaliya and the present juvenile in conflict with law had taken them out from the lobby by beating them, and when crowd started to gather, they all ran away from the place; thus submitted that no prima facie case could be found against the present applicant to allege that he had inflicted any stick blow with any sharp weapon. 4. Countering the arguments, Ms. Zainab I.Bharmal for the complainant submitted that sharp cutting weapon known as ‘Koyta’ was recovered from the present juvenile in conflict with law with blood stain on it. Ms. Zainab submitted that victim Milind was injured with sharp weapon on the head and thigh of both the legs and when he was brought before the hospital, the Doctor had declared him death. 5. Mr. Ms. Zainab submitted that victim Milind was injured with sharp weapon on the head and thigh of both the legs and when he was brought before the hospital, the Doctor had declared him death. 5. Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned APP submitted that the case under Atrocities Act has been filed, where the investigating officer is required to deal with investigation in accordance to law. Learned APP submitted that there is prima facie evidence on record that the applicant was involved in the offence, and the protection officer himself has noted that he would fall in the bad companies of the accused; thus stated that in consonance with the provision of section 12, no bail should be granted. 6. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties and perused the material produced on record. If the offence is considered grievous and taking into consideration the gravity of offence, then no bail ought to have been granted to the other co-accused. The accused, who are majors, have been granted bail. The learned Children Court had gone into the facts of the case, which have been noted against the accused, and has found that the order of the J.J. Board is just and reasonable and did not found it just and reasonable to allow the bail. 6.1 The order of both the courts would be erroneous, since both the courts had not taken into consideration the provision of section 12 of the J.J. Act in the right spirit. While J.J.Board has also dealt with the facts of the case, but has not examined the provision of section 12 of the J.J. Act. The learned J.J. Board as well as Children Court was required to take into consideration the report of the protection office, to examine the fact, whether the juvenile was in a mental and physical capacity to understand the consequences of the offence alleged to have been committed. The J.J. Board as well as Children Courts are required to take the assistance of experience psychologist or psycho social worker or other experts to examine the fact of mental and physical capacity of the juvenile in conflict with law to commit such offence and the ability to understand the consequences of the offence. 7. For the purpose of conducting the preliminary assessment, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. 7. For the purpose of conducting the preliminary assessment, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu & Anr., in Criminal Appeal No.950 of 2022, declared on 13.07.2022, it is imperative to take the assistance of psychologist or psycho- social worker or other experts, who are experienced in working with children in difficult circumstances. The most important aspect, which has been very specifically embolden under sub- rule 10A(2) is while making preliminary assessment, the child shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise. The Board while passing the preliminary assessment order regarding the need for trial of the said child as an adult, shall have to assign reason for the same. The Board decides whether the child should be transferred on the finding of probable cause of the child’s guilt. Clause (xvi) of section 3 of the J.J. Act, for general principles for the administration of the Act, makes it clear that the basic procedural standard of fairness shall be adhered to, including the right to a fair hearing, rule against bias etc. The decision passed by the Board must necessarily be supported by reason, in as much as, assigning reason is the best way out to demonstrate the application of mind. 8. This Court in an earlier Criminal Revision Application No.1024 of 2023 (Child in conflict with law through Guardian v. State of Gujarat) vide judgment dated 15.09.2023 had given the guidelines for the JJB and the Children’s Court to follow in case of a juvenile where the Court was required to have (i) Objective satisfaction (ii) Subjective satisfaction and (iii) Judicial satisfaction and to examine the case the juvenile by following the guidelines of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights which were framed after the case of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu & Another, in Criminal Appeal No.950 of 2022, declared on 13.07.2022. 9. Master Bholu & Another, in Criminal Appeal No.950 of 2022, declared on 13.07.2022. 9. Since, nothing has been brought on record regarding the mental and physical capacity of the juvenile, and the fact of any understanding of the consequences of his act, and taking into consideration the role attributed to the juvenile and the circumstances under which the offences came to be committed, and as the trial will take its own time to conclude, this Court finds this to be a fit case where discretion could be exercised in favour of the juvenile. 10. In the result, the Revision Application is disposed of. The juvenile in conflict with law is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR No.11210025201958 of 2020 registered with Limbayat Police Station, Surat without any order of surety. 11. It is directed that the Probation Officer shall monitor the conduct of the juvenile in conflict with law and shall quarterly submit the report before the Children’s Court till completion of the trial. Moreover, if the Probation Officer considers any necessity of sending the juvenile for any behavior modification then necessary therapy and psychiatric support be provided to the juvenile in conflict with law. 12. The mother of the juvenile to ensure that the juvenile will not fall into bad company. 13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority by Fax or Email forthwith.