JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short the, Act of 2000") is directed against the order dated 24.2.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2006 dismissing his appeal against the order passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board Kota in Cr. Case No. 129/2005 arising out of F.I.R. No. 394/2004 RS. Mahaveer Nagar, Kota for offences under Sections 302, 324, 323 r/w. section 34 and 341 I.PC. 2. The brief and relevant facts of the case are that a written report was lodged by complainant Raju at RS. Mahaveer Nagar, Kota on 7.10.2004 regarding an incident which took place on the same day. On the basis of the report, F.I.R. bearing No. 394/2004 was registered. Petitioner was arrested on 14.2.2005. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for offences under Sections 302, 341, 323 and 34 I.PC. in the Court of Juvenile Justice Board Kota. Bail Application on behalf of the petitioner was moved but the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board Kota rejected the same vide order dated 18.2.2006. The appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota vide order dated 24.2.2006. Hence, this revision petition. 3. It is inter-alia contended that in the separate trial held against accused persons, they have been acquitted vide judgment dated 28.2.2006. The petitioner is a juvenile. From the evidence recorded in the separate trial, nothing incriminating has come on record so as to show even prima-facie involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. It is further contended that even the name of the petitioner does not find place in the First Information Report. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition as well as prayer for suspension of sentence but he could not point out anything from the record to indicate the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have perused the record. 6. It is an admitted fact that petitioner is a juvenile, within the meaning of the provisions of Act of 2000. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have perused the record. 6. It is an admitted fact that petitioner is a juvenile, within the meaning of the provisions of Act of 2000. It is also well settled principle of law that petitioner- juvenile is entitled to bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2000 irrespective of the nature of offences alleged against him. He may however, be declined bail if any one or more of the three conditions mentioned therein reasonably appear from the record. But, no such valid case for refusal of bail is made out in the instant matter. 7. This apart, all co-accused persons having been acquitted of the charges in the trial held against them and even in the said trial nothing incriminating has been stated by the witnesses in their statements against the present petitioner. 8. In this view of the matter, therefore, the orders of the learned courts below are unsustainable and deserve to be set-aside. 9. Consequently, this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. r/w. Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 deserves to be and is hereby allowed and the order dated 24.2.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota in Cr. Appeal No. 29/2006 as well as the order dated 18.2.2006 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice quashed and set-aside. It is further directed that petitioner Anil S/o Jugal Kishore be released on bail on personal bond being furnished by his guardian in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court for his appearance before this (sic. that) Appellate Court, Court on 12.6.2006 and on all dates of hearing until conclusion of trial.Revision Petition allowed. *******