Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This petition has been filed by juvenile Manmohan Singh, who is now confined in Observation Home, Shimla Puri Ludhiana for setting aside the order dated 26.9.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Court, Ludhiana vide which the application of the petitioner for release him on bail was declined and the order dated 11.10.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which appeal against the said order was dismissed. The Courts below declined the bail to the petitioner on the ground that there is apprehension that the release of the petitioner on bail would expose him to moral and physical danger as no elderly person is available to look after him. 2. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along his brother, armed with Kirpans, Kulwant Singh, armed with gandasi and his mother Gurjit Kaur, armed with thapi, alleged to have caused injuries to deceased Kuldeep Singh son of Tarlok Singh. 3. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of commission of the alleged crime, the petitioner was 15 years 4 months old. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that undisputedly, the petitioner is a juvenile and he was so declared by the Juvenile Court, however, he has been denied the benefit of bail by the Courts below in spite of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the two grounds. Firstly, that if the petitioner is released on bail it would expose him to moral and physical danger having no elderly person to look after him. Secondly, the petitioner at the time of occurrence was armed with Kispan and had caused injuries to the deceased as a result of which he died. In these circumstances, the release of the petitioner on bail would likely to harm the trial as he may pass coercion upon the prosecution witnesses. 4. Secondly, the petitioner at the time of occurrence was armed with Kispan and had caused injuries to the deceased as a result of which he died. In these circumstances, the release of the petitioner on bail would likely to harm the trial as he may pass coercion upon the prosecution witnesses. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that both the aforesaid reasons recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are unsustainable and on the basis of the same, the prayer of the petitioner for release him on bail cannot be rejected as it is mandatory for the Juvenile Court to release the juvenile on bail notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force. She further submitted that under Section 12 of the Act, bail can be declined to a juvenile if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. She further submitted that apprehension of the Courts below to the effect that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would expose himself to moral and physical danger having no elderly person to look after him, is wholly without any basis as the grandfather and maternal uncle of the petitioner are always available at home to look after him. In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P., 2003(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 559. She further submitted that merely because the petitioner is alleged to have caused injuries to the deceased by Kirpan the benefit of concession of bail, as provided in the aforesaid Section, cannot be denied. If Such interpretation is accepted then the very purpose of enacting Section 12 of the Act will be defeated. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner was rightly declined the bail keeping in view the nature of crime he has committed and the fact that in case of his release, there is apprehension of his being exposed to moral and physical danger having no elderly person to look after him. 6. 6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. I am of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 26 9.2003 and 11.10.2003 passed by the Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. In order to appreciate the controversy in the present case, Section 12 of the Act 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, 1973 (2 of 1974) 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 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 incharge 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 if 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." 7. From the bare reading of the aforesaid Section, its clear that it is mandatory for the Juvenile Court to release a juvenile on bail with or without surety if such a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Juvenile Board in a bailable or non-bailable offence, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. From the bare reading of the aforesaid Section, its clear that it is mandatory for the Juvenile Court to release a juvenile on bail with or without surety if such a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Juvenile Board in a bailable or non-bailable offence, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The only exception is that if their are reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile 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, then he shall not be released on bail. The reasonable grounds for believing that his release is likely to bring into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would de-feat the ends of justice, should be based upon some material/evidence available on the record. It is not a matter of subjective satisfaction but while declining bail to the juvenile on the said ground, there must be objective assessment of the reasonable grounds that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. In my opinion, under the aforesaid Section, the benefit of bail cannot be denied to the juvenile on the ground that he has committed murder by a sharp edged weapon by inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased. There is only one exception as, indicated above, but under the said exception also the release of the juvenile on bail can be denied if there is sufficient material on record which clearly indicate that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with bad company or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 8. 8. In Sanjay Kumars case (supra) it has been held by the Allahabad High Court that every juvenile for whatever offence he is charged with shall be released on bail but he may, however, be refused bail if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with the any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice and that the existence of such ground should not mere guess work of Court but it should be substantiated by some evidence on record. 9. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner is a juvenile. It is also undisputed that the grandfather of the petitioner is available at home. In case the petitioner is released on bail, he can be looked after by his grandfather and the observation of the Courts below that the release of the petitioner would lead to moral and physical danger having no elderly person to look after him, is a mere apprehension based on no material/evidence. Merely because the petitioner is alleged to have caused injuries to the deceased by sharp edged weapon, he cannot be denied the benefit of bail under Section 12 of the Act, as the provisions of this Section provide that every juvenile for whatever offence he is charged with shall be released on bail except under the aforesaid one circumstance, which in my opinion, is not existing in the instant case. Rather by declining the bail to the petitioner the very purpose of the Act will be defeated, Thus, I am of the firm opinion that the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are not sustain-able in the eyes of law as they will defeat the very purpose of the Act. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned orders dated 26.9.2003 and 11.10.2003, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Court, Ludhiana and Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana respectively, are hereby set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of CJM Ludhiana.