The central legal point established in the judgment is that a juvenile is entitled to bail under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and can only be refused bail if specific grounds enumerated in Section 12 of the Act exist.

This revision under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred teas Act) has been preferred by the revisionist Sanju alias Dheer-endra Kumar against the judgment and order dated 3. 7. 2008, passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Lucknow in Crl. Appeal No. 163 of 2008 Sanju alias Dheerendra Kumar v. State of U. P. under section 52 of the Act by which the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board dated 16. 5. 2008 rejecting the bail applica tion of the revisionist herein in case crime No. 130 of 2008 under sections 342, 376 and 506 I. P. C. , Police Station Itaunja, District Lucknow was confirmed.

Heard learned Counsel for the revi sionist as well as learned A. G. A. for the State. Both the parties-agree that this mat ter be disposed of at this stage finally.

2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of this judgment are that Santosh Kumar, brother of the victim on 15. 4. 2008 had lodged a report against Sanju alias Dheerendra Kumar (revisionist herein), alleging that on 8. 4. 2008 at 8 p. m. Sanju alias Dhirendra Kumar had committed rape on her sister when she had gone to answer call of the nature. On the basis of the first in formation report the accused (revisionist herein) was arrested by the Police and taken before the Juvenile Justice Board where on the basis of the High School Cer tificate he was declared juvenile. The bail application moved on behalf of the revi sionist was rejected. Thereafter an appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge which was also rejected vide im pugned order dated 3. 7. 2008 on the ground that the offence has been committed by the revisionist because his parents have no control over him and in case he is released on bail, it is likely that he will associate with criminals and to release him on bail will defeat the ends of justice.

3. Feeling aggrieved with the afore said order of learned Additional Sessions Judge this revision has been filed.

4. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the revisionist that admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile and his bail application by the Board as well as Sessions Judge has been rejected without any suffi cient ground and there was no material against the revisionist to show that if he is released on bail, his release is likely to bring him into association with any crimi nal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. That gravity of the offence is no ground for re fusal of bail. It was further contended that provision of section 12 of the Act was not analysed properly because there was nothing in the report of Probation Officer that revisionist has any criminal history or previously he had been associated with any criminal. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the revisionist in support of his conten tions relied on Shaildrea Kumar Yadav v. State of U. P. Dand Nirnaya Sangrah 264.

5. Learned A. G. A. through his sub missions supported the impugned order.

6. I have carefully considered the re spective submissions made by the parties. Before averting merit and demerit of the case it is necessary to go through the provisions of section 12 of the Act which reads as follows;

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, notwith standing 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 supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution off 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 psyc