JUDGMENT 1. - Both these revision petitions have been filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care of Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') read with Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 24th June, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar in Criminal Appeal Nos. 8/2008 and 7/2008 whereby the order passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Alwar dated 18th June, 2008 has been upheld and bail has been declined to the accused-petitioners in a criminal case arising out of the first information report No. 116/2008 registered at Police Station Bansoor, District Alwar for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452 and 302 Indian Penal Code. 2. In these revision petitions, prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order dated 24th June, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar in Criminal Appeal Nos. 7/2008 and 8/2008 and the order dated 18th June, 2008 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Alwar in Criminal Case arising out of F.I.R. No. 116/2008 registered at Police Station Bansoor, District Alwar and to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 3. The necessary facts, for the purpose of disposal of both these revision petitions, are that an F.I.R. No. 116/2008 was lodged at Police Station Bansoor District Alwar for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452 and 302 Indian Penal Code by complainant Krishan Singh. In the report it was alleged that on 18.4.2008 at about 7.00 p.m. several persons armed with deadly weapons like sword, knife, pharsa etc. came at the shop of Giriraj Singh and attacked on him, as a result of which Giriraj Singh died. On the basis of the above report a first information report was registered. The accused-petitioners were arrested by the police and thereafter they were produced before the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Alwar who directed the petitioners to be sent to reformatory home, Alwar. Separate applications under Section 12 of the Act for the release of the petitioners on bail were moved be- fore the learned Magistrate, Juvenile Court. Alwar but the same were rejected and the bail was declined. The appeals were preferred by both the petitioners separately under Section 52 of the Act and the same were dismissed by a common order on 24th June, 2008. Alwar but the same were rejected and the bail was declined. The appeals were preferred by both the petitioners separately under Section 52 of the Act and the same were dismissed by a common order on 24th June, 2008. Hence, the present revision petitions have been filed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the accused petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as regards accused Munshi Singh is concerned, he is not named in the first information report. It is also contended that the bail is a matter of right in relation to a juvenile. It is contended that for declining bail to a juvenile it is essential that it should fulfill the requirement of Section 12 of the Act. It is not disputed that both the petitioners are juvenile and in both the orders under challenge it has not been stated that their release on bail is likely to bring them into the association of any known criminal or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or their release would defeat the ends of justice. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, none of the above ingredients are available in the present case, therefore, the bail was not required to be declined. It is contended that it was the duty of the courts below to have taken into consideration the mandatory provisions of the Act but the learned courts below have failed to take into consideration the mandatory provisions of the Act. It is contended that normally bail is required to be granted to the juvenile and in exceptional circumstances, as per the provisions of the Act bail can be declined. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the alleged offence is of heinous nature and, therefore, bail was rightly declined to be petitioners by the learned courts below and the orders passed suffer from no legal infirmity. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and also perused the provisions of the Act. 8. It appears that for the protection of juveniles special Act has been enacted. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and also perused the provisions of the Act. 8. It appears that for the protection of juveniles special Act has been enacted. A perusal of Section 12 of the Act would indicate that if a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution. It further appears from the perusal of the above section that if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring the accused juvenile in the company of known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psycho- logical danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, then only bail to a juvenile can be declined. There are several provisions in the Act, a perusal of which would indicate that what orders are liable to be passed against a juvenile during the course of trial and juvenile's trial is to be separated from other accused persons. A juvenile cannot be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. There is a special procedure for inquiry, appeals, revision etc. in relation to the juvenile. 9. In view of the provisions contained in the Act, the question which arises for consideration is whether the bail was rightly declined to the accused petitioner under Section 12 of the Act, and the appeals preferred against the order declining bail has been rightly rejected. 10. After carefully examining the provisions of the Act, I do not find that in both the impugned orders no exceptional circumstance as indicated in Section 12 of the Act to decline bail to the juveniles is made out. The learned Principal Magistrate as well as the learned appellate court have not taken into consideration the mandatory provisions contained in the Act particularly Section 12 of the Act. What has been stated by both the courts below is that in case the accused petitioners are released on bail in a case where a person has been done to death, the ends of justice would be defeated. I do not find that such observations can decline bail to the juveniles. What has been stated by both the courts below is that in case the accused petitioners are released on bail in a case where a person has been done to death, the ends of justice would be defeated. I do not find that such observations can decline bail to the juveniles. In my opinion the Act being a beneficiary and social oriented legislation should be given full effect by all concerned whenever the matter relating to juvenile comes for consideration before them. 11. The net result of the above discussion is that both the revision petitions are hereby allowed. The orders of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Alwar as well as the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar declining bail to the accused-petitioners are hereby set aside. It is directed that the accused petitioners Munshi Singh son of Shri Bajrang Singh and Vikram Singh son of Shri Sher Singh shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Alwar with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing they shall appear before the said Court or any other Court during pendency of inquiry in the case and that the guardian shall keep proper look after of the delinquent child and keep him away from the company of known criminals.Revisions allowed. *******