JUDGMENT 1. - By this revision petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 12th July, 2010 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur in FIR No.145/2010 police station Pragpura for the offence under section 8/15 NDPS Act whereby the application for grant of bail has been rejected and that of the order dated 20th July, 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur city, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.722/2010 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts, for the disposal of the present petition, are that on 15th May, 2010, a report was submitted by the SHO, Police Station Pragpura to the effect that while he was on petrolling duty, suddenly a vehicle (Tata 207) was seen by him which was going towards Kotputli at a very fast speed. The vehicle was followed and intercepted. In the vehicle two persons were found. On asking about their identity, they disclosed their name as Sachin Kumar and Mustkeen @ Kurban. On conducting a search of the vehicle, 505 Kg poppy straw packed in 12 bags was found and seized by the police. On the basis of above information, FIR No.145/2010 was registered at police station Pragpura for the offence under section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. 3. Inquiry in relation to age of the petitioner- Sachin was conducted and it was found that he was juvenile, therefore, an application under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after to be referred as, 'the Act') on behalf of the petitioner through his father was filed for grant of bail before the Juvenile Justice Board. The application was rejected after hearing both sides by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 12th July, 2010 for the reason that the offence was under the provisions of Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and a possibility was there that the accused may again come in contact with known criminals. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12th July, 2010, an appeal was preferred which was dismissed upholding the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the present petition has been filed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned public prosecutor for the State. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12th July, 2010, an appeal was preferred which was dismissed upholding the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the present petition has been filed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned public prosecutor for the State. 5. It has been the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material available on record to justify declining bail to the petitioner who was juvenile at the time of commission of the offence. It is also contended that before bail to a juvenile is declined, it should fulfill the requirement of section 12 of the Act. It is also contended that merely by making a mention in the impugned order that the petitioner is likely to come in contact with known criminals is not enough unless there is some material available on record to justify the same. It is further contended that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline the bail. It is further contended that the courts below without taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of the Act, in a cursory manner declined bail to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned public prosecutor has contended that the petitioner was found involved in the case along with one Mustkeen @ Kurban and from their vehicle poppy straw of commercial quantity was found, therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner should be given indulgence of bail. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and have also perused the provisions of the Act. 8. It appears that for protection of a juvenile, special Act has been enacted. 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 psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice, then only bail to a juvenile can be declined. There are several other provisions available in the Act and a perusal of provisions 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 regard to the gravity and nature of the offence is concerned, this court in the case Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2007(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 254 , in para 3 has observed that 'the language of section 12 of the Act using the word 'shall', is mandatory and it provides non-obstante clause by using the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force", which conveys the intention of the legislature to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him and the bail can be denied only in the case where 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. 10. In view of the provisions contained in the Act, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether the bail was rightly declined to the accused-petitioner under section 12 of the Act and the appeal preferred against the order declining bail has rightly been rejected. 11. 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 juvenile is made out. The learned Magistrate as well as learned appellate court have not properly appreciated the mandatory provisions of section 12 of the Act and other provisions in relation to the juvenile and merely on the basis of apprehension the bail has been declined. In my opinion, the Act being a beneficiary and social oriented legislation should be given full effect by all concern whenever the matter relating to juvenile comes for consideration before them. 12. In my opinion, the Act being a beneficiary and social oriented legislation should be given full effect by all concern whenever the matter relating to juvenile comes for consideration before them. 12. The net result of the above discussion is that the revision petition is allowed, the order passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board as well as the order passed by the learned appellate court i.e. Sessions Judge, Jaipur city, Jaipur declining bail to the accused-petitioner are here-by set aside. It is directed that the accused-petitioner Sachin son of Nathi Ram shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (father) in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing he 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.Revision allowed. *******