Honble MADAN, J. –(1). Since the similar controversy has arisen out of the common impugned-order, both the revision petitions are being heard and finally decided by this common order. (2). The petitioner who is a juvenile offender (minor) has come by way of this revision petition against the impugned-order dated 3.2.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg whereby, his appeal was dismissed and the prayer of the petitioner for his release on bail under Sec. 37 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 for short ``the Act of 1986 in Misc. Cr. case No. 73/99 arising out of FIR No. 10/99 registered with Police Station Sikar for the offence under Sec. 457 & 376 IPC was rejected. The appeal was dismissed by the trial Court observing that looking into the nature of offence punishable under Sec. 376 IPC, it will be improper for the petitioner to release him on bail notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Act of 1986 which contains specific provisions for the release of juvenile offender on bail pending trial. Sec. 18(1) of the Act of 1986 stipulates, as under- ``18. Bail and custody of juveniles.-(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 Juvenile court, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety 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 danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. (3). A bare look at the aforesaid provision demonstrates that a juvenile offen-der has to be released on bail irrespective of the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed unless, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that his release is likely to bring him into association with any criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. A perusal of the impugned-order of the trial court clearly shows that there is no material on the re-cord before the trial court which shows that in case of release of the petitioner, it is likely to endanger to the society and it would defeat the ends of justice. Sec. 18(3) of the Act of 1986 stipulates, as under- ``(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub sec. (1) by the Juvenile Court 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. (4). I am fortified in my observations from the judgments of various High Courts in the matter of Navin Panwar @ Neetu vs. State (1), Mst. Sarbati & Ors. vs. State of Raj. (2), Phool Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (3) and Kishan Pal and another vs. State of U.P. (4) wherein, the similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court, Rajasthan High Court and Allahabad High Court that the accused who is juvenile at the time of incident is entitled to bail in absence of any material which would indicate that his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice. As a matter of abundant caution, it is the primary duty of the learned trial Magistrate to see that the accused is apparently a juvenile and satisfactory and sufficient evidence in this regard is made available before the Magistrate with regard to his age at the time of commission of offence in the form of his school leaving certificate or any other evidence which would be relevant to determine his age and the trial court should embark upon an enquiry in that regard at the first instance and it is then thereafter that the trial should be proceeded with in accordance with law. If the trial Court comes to the opinion after perusing the satisfactory evidence on the record that the juvenile offender is not a juvenile then the case should be forwarded to the competent court for trial in accordance with law and a specific finding should be recorded in this regard. If the trial Court comes to the opinion after perusing the satisfactory evidence on the record that the juvenile offender is not a juvenile then the case should be forwarded to the competent court for trial in accordance with law and a specific finding should be recorded in this regard. In my view, the salutory provisions of the Act of 1986 as referred to above have not been taken into consideration by the trial court and instead, the trial court has straightway exposed the petitioner to the risk of association with other convicts lodged in the jail which would definitely have a adverse effect on his character and mental development another important aspects which apparently have not been looked into by trial court. The provisions of Sec.18(1) of Act of 1986 are mandatory in nature and the courts are expected to deal with such cases in a very cautious manner and with great care and circumspection. (5).As a result, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.2.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deeg in Misc. Cr. Case No. 73/99 and the order dated 28.1.1999 passed by the Juvenile Court Bharatpur, Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 respectively, are quashed and set-aside. The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rs. 10,000/-with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Court Bharatpur with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hear-ing, the petitioner shall appear before the said Court pending trial. It is further directed that natural guardian or the guardian appointed by the Court shall keep the petitioner under the strict watch and surveillance so as to prevent him from exposing to any danger or from commission of offence or moral turpitude and keep him away from the company of the criminals.