JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to be as 'the Act') against the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Alwar in Criminal Appeal No.167/2010 whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 19.10.2010 rejecting the bail application filed under Section 12 of the Act passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar in criminal case (FIR) No.190/2010 at PS-Bhiwadi, Alwar for offence under Section 395 and 458 IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor for the State and also Sh.Sabuddin, father of the petitioner, who is present in person today. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 26.4.2010 one Kartar Singh, Manager of M/s. Vidhya Metal Manufacturing Co.Pvt. Limited, RIICO Ind. Area, Bhiwadi lodged a written report at P.S. Bhiwadi to the effect that at about 3.00 am, 10-12 people laced with weapons jumped the factory gate and loading the gun on the guard. They caused him beatings and snatched his vallet and mobile. On his making hue and cry, they fired in the air and broke the office glass by throwing stones and also threatened to kill the guard. They also broke the shutter of the work-shop plant and threatening the workers, they took about 4500-5000 kgs of copper wire bundles and copper scrap in the vehicles they brought. 4. On this report, criminal case (FIR) No. 190/2010 under Sections 458 and 380 IPC was registered and the present petitioner being a juvenile was taken into custody and sent to juvenile home. His bail application filed before the Juvenile Justice Board was dismissed vide order dated 19.10.2010. 5. As against the order dated 19.10.10, an appeal was preferred before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Alwar which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2010 which has been assailed before this Court. 6. The learned Sessions Judge as also the Juvenile Justice Board dismissed the application under Section 12 of 'the Act' on the main ground that, besides the present case, the petitioner is also involved in two more cases of same nature along with other 10-12 accused persons who are common in all the three cases. 6. The learned Sessions Judge as also the Juvenile Justice Board dismissed the application under Section 12 of 'the Act' on the main ground that, besides the present case, the petitioner is also involved in two more cases of same nature along with other 10-12 accused persons who are common in all the three cases. It has been observed by learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order that the perusal of the case diary pertaining to the three matters, shows that the petitioner alongwith co-accused have committed decoity in M/s. Vidhya Metal Manufacturing Co.Pvt. Limited. He and his other co-accused have also committed robbery in the same manner in other industry namely M/s.Best Industries, for which case no.189/2010 under Sections 458 & 380 IPC; and case no. 202/2010 under Section 395 IPC have been registered. 7. The learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal preferred on behalf of juvenile, observed that the petitioner alongwith other accused persons was involved in commission of serious offences of decoity, robbery and theft and that the circumstances show that by his release, there was all possibility of his coming into association with known criminals and expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Out of three cases, two pertain to the occurrence of 26.4.10 itself and that it was not possible for anybody to commit the two dacoities during the same night. His argument was that just because Bolero Jeep owned by petitioner's father has been found involved in the commission of offence, that itself does not prove any case against the petitioner. 9. It was further argued that no recovery has been made from him nor is he named in the FIR and that his test identification parade has also not been conducted. Arguing that the provisions of Section 12 of 'the Act' are mandatory, therefore, the petitioner should be released on bail. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Lal Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 2006(1) SCC 167 . 11. Arguing that the provisions of Section 12 of 'the Act' are mandatory, therefore, the petitioner should be released on bail. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Lal Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 2006(1) SCC 167 . 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State vehemently opposed the petition stating that the petitioner is involved with other known criminals in commission of serious offences like dacoity, robbery and theft and that his release will bring him in association with known criminals. The very fact that the petitioner alongwith same set of 10-12 accused persons is found involved in three serious natural cases, is sufficient to make a reasonable belief against the petitioner. 12. Case diaries of case nos.190/10 and 189/10 pertaining to two occurrences of M/s. Vidhya Metal Manufacturing Co.Pvt. Limited and M/s.Best Industries were produced before me. 13. I have considered these arguments, and also heard the father of the petitioner. 14. Three cases registered against the present petitioner being case No.189/10, 190/10 and 202/10 for the offences of robbery, dacoity and theft clearly show that the same accused persons were involved in all the three cases. It is clearly established that the petitioner alongwith his gang mates has been involved in these kind of incidents. The father of the petitioner present in person had been specifically asked the question as to how his minor remained out of the house during the midnights at 2.00 and 3.00 am on 26.4.10 and on 1.5.10. He had no answer. He also could not tell the names of any of the friends of his son (present petitioner). All the three incidents are of mid night and more or less of the same nature, which clearly show that the petitioner does not appear to be in the control of his parents and is in company with 10-12 accused persons indulged in these types of activities. 15. This is not a stage to see the merits of the case. The only issue before this Court, at this moment, is that whether it is in the interest of child/petitioner to release him on bail or not. 16. Section 12(1) of 'the Act' reads as under: "12. 15. This is not a stage to see the merits of the case. The only issue before this Court, at this moment, is that whether it is in the interest of child/petitioner to release him on bail or not. 16. Section 12(1) of 'the Act' reads as under: "12. Bail of juvenile.- (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 [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person] 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." 17. It is clear from above that the provisions of Section 12 are not mandatory and that the Court has discretion in the matters like the present one. If there are 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, the Court can refuse to release the juvenile on bail. The paramount interest is of the child and when such circumstances exist the court has to be very careful as his release may adversely affect him and his future. 18. Same set of accused in three offences occurring between April and May that too at mid night. The fact that some of them are alleged to have been laced with dangerous weapons, clearly shows that the petitioner is in company with the persons of that back-ground and that in my opinion is a reasonable ground for having that belief. The afore-mentioned section clearly reveals that the provision is a directory provision and not mandatory. 19. The fact that some of them are alleged to have been laced with dangerous weapons, clearly shows that the petitioner is in company with the persons of that back-ground and that in my opinion is a reasonable ground for having that belief. The afore-mentioned section clearly reveals that the provision is a directory provision and not mandatory. 19. In these circumstances, it is clear to suggest that the petitioner belongs to a gang of criminals and, therefore, there is a strong possibility that if he is released on bail, he would go back to the known criminals and his release would also defeat the ends of justice. 20. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to accept this revision petition of the petitioner filed against the impugned order dated 25.10.10 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Alwar. 21. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revision petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******