ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

The juvenile 'V' son of Shri Ramswaroop has been confined in connection with FIR No.293/2020 registered at Police Station Naya Sahar, District Bikaner and is facing charges under Sections 302 , 212, 34 read with Section 12 0-B of the IPC. He is lodged at the Child Observation Home, Bikaner. The bail application preferred under Section 12 of the JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT , 2015 by the juvenile through amicus curiae was dismissed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner vide order dated 24.04.2023. An appeal was preferred under Section 101 of the JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT , 2015 against the said order before the learned learned Children's Court, the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 Cases, Bikaner, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.04.2023 and the order passed by the learned Board was upheld. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the present revision petition has been filed under Section 102 of the JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT read with Section 397 /401 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner submits that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned court below has grossly erred in rejecting the bail application of the juvenile-petitioner. They have failed to consider the correct factual and legal aspects of the case. It is submitted that the allegation of opening the gunfire is not against the delinquent before this court. As per the allegations, the other accused Bala @ Balkishan was responsible for that action. The juvenile has been detained at the Child Observation Home, Bikaner since quite some time and looking at the pace at which the trial is proceeding, it will likely take long time to conclude. The Juvenile Justice Board has treated the accused as juvenile. He further submits that there is no possibility of the juvenile-petitioner absconding. There is nothing on record that may debar him from getting released on bail, therefore, it is humbly prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the juvenile be released on bail.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner and submits that since the matter pertains to commission of a grave offence, the petitioner is not deserving of being released on bail.

4. Heard.

5. From a perusal of the material available on record, it is revealing that the allegation of opening the gunfire is not against the juvenile and that is against another accused.

6. From the perusal of Section 12 (1) of the Act of 2015, it is established legal position that a delinquent juvenile ordinarily has to be released on bail irrespective of nature of offence alleged to have been committed by him unless it is shown by evidence that if he is released on bail, there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the delinquent juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The nature of offence and the merits of the case do not have any relevance. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material while opposing the bail and make out any of the grounds provided in the section, which may persuade the court not to release the juvenile on bail. But in this case, there is nothing on record to show that the release of the juvenile-petitioner is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

7. Upon consideration of the overall facts and circumstances,