P.K. Lohra, J.

1. Seeking bail, the revisionists, petitioners-juveniles (1) Bhanuprakash @ Banti (2) Vishal, and (3) Niranjan @ Sonu Sharma, through their fathers - natural guardians, have preferred this revision petition under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘JJ Act’) to assail impugned order dated 27th of April 2017, passed by Children Court (Addl. Sessions Judge), (Link Officer) (Sessions Judge), Churu (for short ‘learned appellate Court’) confirming order dated 24th of April 2017, passed by Principal Magistrate, juvenile Justice Board, Churu (for short ‘learned Board’).

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of case are that a complaint, against petitioners-juveniles for offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, came to be registered as FIR No. 7/2017 at Police Station Sardar Shahar, District Churu. Thereafter, the juveniles were produced before learned Board and presently they are lodged in Observation Home. Earlier, at the behest of petitioners, two bail applications moved before the learned Board were rejected vide orders dated 8th of February 2017 and 12th of April 2017 and the third bail application too was rejected by the learned Board vide its order dated 24th of April 2017 against which an appeal was preferred before learned appellate Court but did not fructify to the advantage of petitioners-juveniles and the learned appellate Court rejected the appeal vide order dated 27th of April 2017.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that accused petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and no specific role is assigned to them for commission of alleged offence. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that a report, solicited from Probation Officer, speaks volume about the fact that conduct of the petitioners- juveniles is normal. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that main allegation is against Guard and the approver's statements are per se not incriminating. It is urged that petitioners are in custody since January 2017 and looking to their age, who are children in conflict with law, benevolent view is desirable in the matter of grant of bail for facilitating their reformation. Learned counsel for the petitioners-juveniles submits that natural guardians of the delinquent minors undertake to exercise complete control over the delinquents and will not bring them into association with any known criminal or will not put them in such a situation that will put the minors into physical, mental or psychological danger and the delinquents will not repeat the offence alleged against them and they would be reformed. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that both the Courts below have not examined the afflictions of petitioners-juveniles in conflict with law in right perspective and therefore, interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is warranted.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant, and also perused the impugned order, report of the Probation Officer and other materials available on record.

6. In the instant case, adjudication relates to the fact as to whether the bail to the delinquent juvenile in conflict with law will have to be considered on the strength of the merits of the case, or on gravity of offence or on the parameters as laid down under Section 12 of the JJ Act. Before dealing with the matter, it would be appropriate to take into account Section 12 of the JJ Act which is extracted herein-under:

"12. Bail of juvenile - (1) 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