1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. The petitioner, through his natural guardian-father, has preferred this revision petition being aggrieved by order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhilwara, vide which the application under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ) was rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 05.10.2019 passed by learned Child Court No.1 (Sessions Judge), Bhilwara, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 101(1) of theof 2015 was rejected.

3. At the outset learned Public Prosecutor confirms service upon the private respondent.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards statement of prosecutrix rendered before Juvenile Justice Board, Paldi, District Bhilwara, wherein serious allegations have been levelled against Lokesh.

5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are no allegation of rape against the present petitioner. The present petitioner has been attributed role of only dropping the girl back at her home.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is nothing on record to infer that release of the juvenile in conflict with would bring him into association of criminals and the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned appellate court have committed an error in rejecting the prayer for release of the juvenile in conflict with law.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application in general.

8. I have considered the rival contentions.

9. The gravity of the offence is not to be seen at this stage. The only thing which is to be seen is that whether release of the juvenile in conflict with law would defeat the ends of justice or would bring him into association of criminals, which will have adverse moral effect upon him. There is nothing on record to come to the conclusion that the release of the juvenile in conflict with law would bring him into association of criminals. Further, there is nothing on record to show that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

10. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned appellate court are set aside. The petitioner be released forthwith.

11. It is directed that the petitioner Yad Ram S/o Sardar Singh Meena, be released on bail, provided his natural guardianfather, furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- alongwith two sureties of Rs.25,000/-each to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board with the stipulation that he shall produce the petitioner before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board on all dates till the enquiry or trial is completed. His natural guardian-father shall ensure that the juvenile in conflict with law maintains good conduct and behaviour.