Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.—Supplementary-affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The brief facts as emanate from record reveal that a first information was lodged at case crime No. 181 of 2013 under Section 376 (d), 120-B, I.P.C. and Section 5(g), 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali district Shamili on 10.6.2013, wherein the revisionist (juvenile) was one of the accused. The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet was filed. During the course of the proceedings, the revisionist claimed himself to be a juvenile by moving an application before the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffar Nagar (in short referred to as the Board). The Board, after due consideration, allowed the application so moved, vide order dated 14.4.2014 and thereafter, he moved an application for bail before the Board. The Board after considering the application for bail, rejected the same vide order dated dated 25.4.2014, holding that in case the juvenile is released on bail, it may bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and his release on bail will defeat the ends of justice. Thereafter, Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2014 was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, wherein the appellate Court confirmed the finding of the Board and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 19.5.2014. Consequently, this revision.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in this case the Courts below completely overlooked and misread the contents of the report of the District Probation officer while making observation about the well being of the minor (juvenile), that his release would adversely effect the moral, physical or psychological interest, thus, defeating the ends of justice.

5. Learned counsel for the private respondent opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant was involved in a heinous crime and concurrent findings have been returned by the Board and the lower appellate Court which need no interference by this Court.

6. In view of above rival submissions the moot point involved in this revision for adjudication relates to the fact as to whether the bail to the delinquent juvenile in conflict with law will have to be considered on the strength of the merits of the case, or on gravity of offence or on the parameters as laid down under Section 12 of the Act.

7. Before dealing with the matter, it would be appropriate to take into account Section 12 of the Act which is extracted hereinunder:

“12. 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, 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 1[or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or 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 justice.

(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.”

8. The above law as contained under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the