JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.4.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the judgment of the Principal Magistrate dated 1.4.2011 and has denied the benefit of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 to him. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that provisions of Section 12 of the Act is mandatory in nature and as it uses the word shall'. Therefore, the petitioner, being a juvenile, deserves to be enlarged on bail. 3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously contended that the petitioner is accused of having committed double murder and is facing a trial for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. In case, the petitioner were to be let out on bail, it would "defeat the ends of justice". According to the learned Public Prosecutor since Section 12 of the Act carves out three circumstances in which the bail can be denied, therefore, the word "shall" should be interpreted as "may". Hence, Section 12 of the Act is not mandatory in nature, but is merely directory in nature. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 5. In catena of cases, this Court has already held that Section 12 of the Act is not mandatory in its nature. For, Section 12 of the Act contains three exceptional circumstances wherein the benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile delinquent. One of the circumstances is that in case his release would "defeat the ends of justice", then the benefit of bail can be denied to him. Justice is not a one way street only to be appreciated from the point of view of the accused. Justice is also a concept which should be appreciated, in fact, both from the point of view of the victim and the society at large. In case an alleged murderer were let out, specially who has allegedly committed double murders, obviously the sense of justice in the mind of the victim would be shaken to its roots. Moreover, even the society would be shocked to know that a person who is alleged to be involved in double murders is permitted to roam free by granting him the benefit of bail under the Act. Moreover, even the society would be shocked to know that a person who is alleged to be involved in double murders is permitted to roam free by granting him the benefit of bail under the Act. Therefore, "the ends of justice" would be defeated in case the petitioner were granted the benefit of Section 12 of the Act. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and does not find any reason for granting the benefit of Section 12 of the petitioner. This petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******