Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.—List is revised. Learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State are present. No one turns up on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

Heard Sri Vinay Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.

By means of the instant revision, the revisionist Harpal father/natural guardian son of Nakli has sought bail of his minor son Nitin Pal, in Case No. 9/11 of 2013 State v. Nitin Pal, arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2013 under Sections 376(2) (g), 364 I.P.C. Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffarnagar, with the prayer that the impugned order dated 4.9.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2013, affirming the order dated 22.7.2013 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarnagar, be set aside and the application moved for bail of delinquent minor be allowed.

2. vide order dated 23.3.2015, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar was directed to submit compliance report pursuant to the order dated 16.1.2014 passed by this Court whereby he was directed to submit a report regarding service of notice upon the respondent No. 2. Compliance report dated 1.4.2015 has been sent through the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar whereby it has been intimated that notice upon the respondent No. 2 has been personally served and compliance report had already been submitted to office. Copy of the original notice sent is annexed herewith on record. A perusal of the same reflects that notice upon the respondent No. 2 is personally served and an endorsement to that effect has been made on the back of the copy of notice. This report is dated 1.2.2014. Accordingly, notice upon the respondent No. 2 is deemed sufficient.

3. Brief sketch of relevant facts as discernible from record indicate that an FIR was lodged on 9.1.2013 under Sections 364, 376 (2) (g) I.P.C., which was registered at Case Crime No. 18 of 2013, Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar, wherein the delinquent juvenile alongwith other co-accused were named and alleged to have committed offence of gang rape. The matter was investigated into and the statement of the victim was also got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation after collecting all the relevant material, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons including the delinquent minor under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C.

4. During course of proceeding, an application was moved by the applicant Nitin Pal for declaring him juvenile. This application was considered by the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarnagar and the same was allowed vide order dated 1.7.2013.

The bail application was initially moved before the Juvenile Justice Board which was rejected vide order dated 22.7.2013, against which Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2013 was preferred. Upon consideration of the same, the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar rejected/dismissed the prayer for bail made in the aforesaid appeal. Hence this revision.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the parameters required to be considered for granting or not granting the bail to the delinquent minor are to be read in context to the mandate contained under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to “as the Act”), and the gravity of the offence will not be a guiding factor while considering the bail application of the delinquent juvenile.

5. Cutting short his argument, learned counsel for the revisionist has emphasized that the Court below was very much guided by the gravity of the offence and completely overlooked and misread the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, wherein parents of the delinquent minor have given an undertaking that in case the delinquent minor is released on bail, then safety, custody and care of the delinquent minor will be taken care of by them.

Learned AGA h