Honble D.R. Azad, J.—The present Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2008 and the order dated 28.2.2008 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, whereby the bail application on behalf of the Juvenile in case Crime No. 582 of 2007, under Sections 376/511, I.P.C., Police Station Binavar, District Budaun has been rejected.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused-applicant on 1.11.2007 at about 4 p.m. committed rape with the daughter of the informant, who was only 6 years old. The accused-appellant was challaned by the police in the case. Accused claimed himself Juvenile offender of the age below 18 years. Latter on, an application to release the accused-revisionist on bail was moved before the Juvenile Justice Board but the same was rejected by the Board vide its order dated 28.2.2008.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist-applicant preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly being Crl. Appeal No. 81 of 2008. The said appeal was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly on 28.3.2008.

4. Aggrieved by both the orders dated 28.2.2008 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly, present Criminal Revision, has been preferred before this Court.

5. I have heard Sri Babu Ram Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist­applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the judgement of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly and records of the case.

6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order passed by the learned lower Court is wholly illegal as bail to the Juvenile cannot be refused on the ground that he has committed heinous offence. It is further contended that the bail application of the Juvenile is to be considered in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and bail can be refused if the release of Juvenile 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 and since the bail to the revisionist, in the instant case, has been refused on the ground that he has committed heinous crime hence, the impugned order being wholly illegal should be set aside and the revisionist should be admitted to bail, as no material has been brought on record to show that the release of the accused-revisionist 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. Per contra, learned Addl. Government Advocate argued that the accused­revisionist who was more than 17 years of age, has committed rape with 6 year aged girl. The offence is of grievous nature and in such type of cases, accused should have not been released on bail.

8. For appreciating the argument of the parties, I would like to reproduce the provisions of bail incorporated under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). It runs as under :

"12. Ball 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 in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the care of any fit institution or fit person) but he shall not be so released If there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release 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