Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3.4.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Aligarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2015 whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist against the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh, in Case Crime No. 524 of 2014, under Section 376D, 342 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh, was dismissed

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is a student, who was aged 15 years 8 months and six days at the time of the alleged incident. He has not committed any offence. He has no criminal history. However, the bail applications filed earlier by him before the Courts below were rejected without any application of judicial mind in an illegal and arbitrary manner. It is next contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the statement given by the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are wholly unreliable and untrustworthy. It is further submitted that the co-accused Lokesh, who was major, has already been released on bail whereas the applicant is still languishing in District Jail, Aligarh, since 18.8.2014 in clear violation of the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the revisionist on the ground that the revisionist is involved in a henious offence of gang rape and so he is not entitled to bail.

5. The record shows that vide order dated 12.11.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh, the revisionist has been declared juvinile and no appeal has been filed against the aforesaid order. Under these circumstances, the bail application of the revisionist should have been dealt with by the Courts below in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which is reproduced below :

“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, 1972 (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 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.”

6. Thus, Section 12 of the Act lays down only three contingencies in which the bail can be refused to juvenile. These are:

(i) If his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or;

(ii) Expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or;

(iii) That his release would defeat the ends of justice.

7. The Courts below have rejected the bail application of the revisionist on the ground of gravity of the offence and apprehending that if he is released on bail there are chances of his being coming into association with the known criminals.

8. In Prakash v. State of Rajsthan, 2006 Cri LJ 1373, it has been observed that “ at the time of consideration of bail under Section 12 of the Act, the merit or nature of offence has no relevancy. The language of the Section 12 of the Act using the word “shall” is mandatory in nature and providing non obstante clause by using the expression “notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force”, he be released on bail .........................................”, shows the intention of legislature to grant bail to the delinquent juvenile offender with certain exceptions. It is for