D.G.R. Patnaik, J.

1. The instant application has been filed against the order dated 07.06.2007 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2007 whereby the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi dated 16.12.2006 by which the petitioners prayer for bail under the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act has been rejected.

2. The petitioner has been made accused for the offences under Sections 302, 201/34 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was remanded to custody in the remand home at Gumla since he was found to be a juvenile on the date of alleged occurrence. His prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Board before the Sessions court but by the impugned order, the Sessions court also dismissed the petitioners prayer. It is further submitted that an order was passed by this Court on the last date calling for a report regarding the progress made in the trial of the petitioner during the period of past two and half years. The report has been received which indicates that the progress made in the trial is tardy and slow and even after lapse of such a long period of custody, only three witnesses out of 14, have been examined till date. It is further submitted that the co-accused Xavier Minz, on the basis of whose confessional statement, the name of the petitioner had transpired, is enjoying the privilege of bail granted to him long ago and the petitioner has been denied the privilege on the grounds which is totally imaginary and misconceived. Learned Counsel adds that the rejection of petitioners prayer for bail made on the ground that the offence is serious, is infact not tenable as because the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, being a special act, lays down that bail should be granted to the juvenile irrespective of the nature of offence, except on certain specific circumstances. It is further submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the petitioners father had offered to take the petitioner into his custody and keep him in proper care and protection under his control.

4. Learned Counsel for the state, on the other hand, opposes the prayer on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner is serious and the petitioner is accused for committing heinous offences, both of murder and rape of the victim and as rightly observed by the learned court below, the release of the petitioner would bring him in association with other known criminals.

5. From perusal of the order of the court below, it appears that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected basically on the ground that the allegations against him are serious and the offence is grave in nature.

6. Though, the court below has observed that the release of the petitioner from custody is likely to bring him in association with other known criminals but there is no basis of such opinion, recorded by the court below. It further appears that the court below has failed to take into consideration the offer made by the petitioners father that he would maintain the custody of the petitioner and keep him in proper care and protection. It need not be emphasized that the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act is a special provision under which the benefit of bail can be extended to the juvenile, irrespective of the nature of offence, and the only few exceptions to the rule are that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him in association with other known criminals and that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

7. In the present case, as mentioned above, there is no sound basis to opine that the petitioners release would bring him in association with other known criminals. Furthermore, there is no ground to indicate that his release will defeat the ends of justice.