1. This petition has been preferred under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for brevity “The Act of 2000”) against the impugned order dated 14.11.2014 passed by Session Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.412/2014 whereby rejection order of bail application filed under section 12 of the Act of 2000 dated 28.10.2014 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gwalior has been confirmed.

2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition in brief are that on 4.10.2014 complainant Jogendra Jatav lodged a report that his son Hanuman @ Sunil aged about 19 years was found dead in his Courtyard. There was stab injuries on his body. The complainant's wife Savitri told him that at 11:00 p.m. her son Hanuman, Rahul, Suraj and petitioner Boby @ Vinod were drinking alcohol and they had a fight regarding key of motorcycle. Police arrested the petitioner Juvenile in conflict with law. On his memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act. A pant and a shirt with blood stain were seized. Crime No.376/2014 was registered against the petitioner. On filing the application by the mother of the Juvenile in conflict with law before the (Boby @ Vinod v. State of M.P.) Juvenile Justice Board under section 12 of the Act of 2000, the same was rejected on 8.10.2014. This order was challenged by filing Criminal Appeal No.412/2014 before the Session Judge, Gwalior. By the impugned order dated 14.11.2014 the appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the present revision has been filed by the Juvenile in conflict with law stating that the appellate Court has committed error in rejecting the prayer of the appellant. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the impugned order as well as order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.

3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the petitioner is a young boy of 17 years. He has no criminal antecedents. His father is no more. His mother is looking after him. If he is kept in custody, he will come with association of other criminals and which would result in frustrating the ends of justice. Therefore, he be given the benefit of bail. Learned counsel also placed reliance in a case disposed of by this High Court and, reported in LAWS (MPH) 7.11.1959=2008(I) MPWN 94.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposes the submissions and contended that the allegation against the petitioner is very clear and it is a serious offence. If the petitioner is released, it is likely to expose him to moral or psychological danger.

5. I have gone through the record and heard the parties. In section 12 of the Act of 2000, it is made clear that the juvenile in conflict with law shall be released on bail with or without surety and place him under Probation Officer or under the Court or any fit institution or fit person. But he will not be so released, if there appears 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. These words of section 12 of the Act of 2000 confess the intention of legislature to grant bail to the Juvenile irrespective of nature or gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the Juvenile.

7. Where there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the Juvenile in conflict with law is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or exposing him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release shall defeat the ends of justice, then only he can be detained in the shelter home.

8. On going through the citations placed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that if there is no allegation that release of delinquent Juvenile on bail, shall bring into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release shall defeat the ends of justice, he deserves to be