JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this petition filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (herein-after referred to as 'the Act') the petitioner has sought bail through her natural guardian (father - Jai Karan) against the FIR no 163/2011 registered at Police Station Singhana (Jhunjhunu) for the offence under Sections 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that a report was lodged at the instance of complainant Sahi Ram (father of deceased Krishna Kumar) in relation to an incident, which allegedly took place on 31).06.2011. The petitioner Aruna is stated to be 17 years old and thus a juvenile. According to the complainant, on 30.06.2011 he and all his family members were sleeping in the house constructed at the field itself, whereas his son Krishna Kumar and brother-in-law (loser) Dharamveer, were sleeping on one cot. Next morning i.e. on 01.07.2011 at about 5.30 A. M. when the complainant (father) got up, he saw, Dharamveer sleeping on the cot alone. On being asked, he had no knowledge as to where Krishna Kumar was and on search, the deceased Krishna Kumar was found dead on the walkway and his neck was surrounded by electric wires, and he had doubt that his daughter-in- law Aruna and her paramour had murdered his son. On this report, case was registered and after usual investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner Aruna as also co-accused Vikas Jat. 3. An application for grant of hail was moved before the Juvenile Justice Board, Jhunjhunu, which was rejected vide order dated 08.08.2011 and the appeal preferred against it also came to he dismissed by Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu on 17.08.2011. Hence the present revision petition has been filed. 4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the courts below have not taken into consideration the mandatory provisions of the Act. It was further contended that the requirement of Section 12 of the Act is to enlarge the juvenile on bail, unless it is found that on release of a juvenile, he will come in contact with known or unknown criminals. It was further contended that the requirement of Section 12 of the Act is to enlarge the juvenile on bail, unless it is found that on release of a juvenile, he will come in contact with known or unknown criminals. It was further submitted that the petitioner is only 17 years old and both the courts below have not assigned proper reasons for declining the hail, therefore, the petitioner's matter requires consideration for bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that in this case there are serious allegations against the petitioner. as allegations are to the effect that she, along with her paramour (co-accused), committed the murder of her would-be husband, with whom her marriage had been fixed by the family. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Appellate Court has rightly observed that the possibility of her not being in company with known criminals, cannot he ruled out. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me by both the parties and also perused the provisions of the Act. 7. Legislature has enacted a special Act for the protection of juvenile. A perusal of Section 12 of the Act indicates that if a juvenile is arrested or detained, 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 appear 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 his release would defeat the ends of justice, then only bail to a juvenile can be declined. 8. 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 appeal preferred against the order declining hail has been rightly rejected. 9. After carefully examining the provisions of the Act, I do not find that in both the impugned orders, exceptional circumstances as indicated in Section 12 of the Act to decline bail to the juvenile, were made out. 9. After carefully examining the provisions of the Act, I do not find that in both the impugned orders, exceptional circumstances as indicated in Section 12 of the Act to decline bail to the juvenile, were made out. The learned Juvenile Justice Board 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 the case against the accused petitioner, there are serious allegations to the effect that she along with her paramour (co-accused) committed the murder of her would be husband and that her own physical security could be endangered and that her release would bring her in the company of criminals, but there has not been any record to that effect. 10. Therefore, I do not find that there is any such material collected during the course of investigation to show that on releasing the petitioner on bail, she will come in the company of known or unknown criminals. 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 the revision petition is allowed. The order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Jhunjhunu as well as the order passed by Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, declining bail to the accused petitioner, are hereby set aside. 12. It is directed that the accused petitioner Aruna D/o Jai Karan, shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond by her natural guardian in the sum of Rs. 20.000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Jhunjhunu, with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, she 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 her away from the company of known criminals. *******