JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. In brief, informant of the case was returning after collecting dues from consumers of his Master. He was intercepted by the petitioner alongwith two others and on the point of pistol, he was parted with all the collected money. This petitioner was apprehended on the spot, while his two associates succeeded in their escape but not only the looted cash rather pistol was also recovered from their possession. 3. Now, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no criminal antecedent of this petitioner nor of co-accused persons. It is for the Court to release the petitioner without considering the nature of the crime. With such prayer bail is moved before the Juvenile Justice Board, which has been refused and that is affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. I have gone through both the bail petitions and found mistake committed by both the Court while considering the bail for a juvenile in conflict with law. It is for the Board as well as for the Court to consider Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Section 12 of sub-section (1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 runs as follows:- - "(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." 5. Thus, the section clearly provides for releasing of the juvenile and bail moved can only be refused if release is apprehending reasonable grounds for believing that would likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Thus, the section clearly provides for releasing of the juvenile and bail moved can only be refused if release is apprehending reasonable grounds for believing that would likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Nature of the crime and petitioners overt act may defeat the ends of justice which circumstances fulfilling other two grounds for refusal of the bail should be taken into consideration and by making observation only about application of any of the three bail can be refused. 6. In the instant case, observation of the Board is to the effect that there was chance of going of the petitioner in gang of criminals that is not the languages or intention or mandate of the Act and that order is only confirmed without adding any more material concerning any of all the three grounds. So, the conclusion made by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Sessions Court are not liable to sustain. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision petition is allowed. The order dated 8.9.2009 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 86 of 2009 by the Sessions Judge and the order dated 6.8.2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board are set aside and the case is sent back for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law specifically taking into consideration Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 8. Let the order be communicated through FAX at the cost of the petitioner in connection with Cr. Appeal No. 86 of 2009 (Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 178 of 2008) in the Court of B.K.P. Gupta, Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara.