ORDER 1. Present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 24.11.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Appeal No. 167/2011 dismissing the appeal preferred by the applicant assailing the order dated 20.10.2011 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 129/2011. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 8.3.2011 the applicant is alleged to have committed the murder of one Mina, along with co-accused. Undisputedly, the applicant is minor aged about 13 years. The applicant filed an application before the Principal MagistratelPresident, Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short "the Act of 2000") for grant of bail which was rejected on the ground that the applicant is involved in commission of the offences under Sections 342 and 302/34 IPC and with the help of his colleague he practiced sorcery on Mina as a result of which she died. Learned Magistrate has mentioned in its order that if the applicant is released on bail, he would be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger and that if he comes back to the same atmosphere; ends of justice would be defeated. Order of the Magistrate was assailed by the applicant by way of appeal before the Sessions Judge, Raipur which has been dismissed by the order impugned mainly on the ground that the accused/appellant appears to be the main accused and by practicing sorcery he has committed the murder of Mina. In the report of the Probation Officer, it has been mentioned that it is the orthodox tradition-bound society which has driven the accused/applicant to sorcery. Learned appellate Court has also mentioned in its order that if the applicant is released on bail, he would be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the Courts below have completely overlooked the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 and more particularly the report submitted by the Probation Officer Annexure A-3. He submits that in its report the probation officer has categorically mentioned that he has no objection if the applicant is released on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the Courts below have completely overlooked the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 and more particularly the report submitted by the Probation Officer Annexure A-3. He submits that in its report the probation officer has categorically mentioned that he has no objection if the applicant is released on bail. He submits that there is absolutely nothing in the report of the Probation Officer that if the applicant is released on bail, he would be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger and that the words "he would be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger" have been mentioned in the impugned order just because they are described in the relevant provision itself. 4. Counsel for the respondent/State however submits that the application and the appeal of the applicant have rightly been rejected by the Courts below. 5. Before drawing any conclusion regarding the correctness or otherwise of the orders impugned, glance of the relevant provision i.e. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 becomes necessitous, which is reproduced as hereunder for ready reference: "Section 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. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in, the prescribed manner until he can be brought -before a Board. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in, the prescribed manner until he can be brought -before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order." A bare reading of section 12 (1) makes it clear that 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. It further says that such person 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. 6. Similarly, Section 13 of the Act of 2000 reads as under: "13. Information to parent, guardian or probation officer–Where a juvenile is arrested, the officer incharge of the police station or the special juvenile police unit to which the juvenile is brought shall, as soon as may be after the arrest, inform – (a) The parent or guardian of the juvenile, if he can be found of such arrest and direct him to be present at the Board before which the juvenile will appear; and (b) The probation officer of such arrest to enable him to obtain information regarding the antecedents and family background of the juvenile and other material circumstances likely to be of assistance to the Board for making the inquiry." 7. In the present case, in compliance of the provisions of the Act of 2000, the report of the Probation Officer was called by the Juvenile Justice Board, which reads as under: ^^fo|eku fuokZg fLFkfr % ckyd dk firk 6 ekg iwoZ viuh xkao ls tehu vkfn csapdj [kEgkjMhg] jk;iqj esa fdjk;s ds edku esa leLr ifjokj ds lkFk fuokljr gS A ckyd dk firk lqj{kkdehZ dk dk;Z djrk gS] ,oa ekrk ?kj laHkkyus ds lkFk&lkFk ckbZ dk dk;Z Hkh djrh gS] lfEefyr vk; ls gh ?kj dk Hkj.k&iks”k.k gksrk gS A ifjokj NksVk gksus dh otg ls ykyu&ikyu lqpk: :i ls gks jgk gS A ikB’kkyk@ikB’kkyk v/;kid d{k ds lkFkhx.kksa ds izfr n`f”Vdks.k vkSj mldk fo”k; ckyd laLFkk esa vkus ds iwoZ d{kk 6oha mRrh.kZ dj pqdk Fkk] ;g fu;fer Nk= ds :i esa v/;;ujr Fkk A leL;k ds lq>k;s x;s dkj.k & ckyd uknkuh o ukle>h dh otg ls vkijkf/kd d`R; dh vksj mUeq[k gqvk] ;fn va/kfo’oklksa dks le> ldrk rks ‘kk;n bl izdkj dk d`R; u djrk A mipkj laca/kh flQkfj’ksa rFkk ifjoh{kk vf/kdkjh )kjk mlds cvksj esa nh xbZ tkudkjh & ckyd v/;;ujr~ Nk= gS] mls f’k{kk dh vksj vf/kd /;ku nsus laca/kh le>kb’k nh xbZ A ckyd dk d`R; :f<+oknh ,oa ijaijkoknh lekt dk ifjpk;d gS] mls Vksuk tknw gsrw :f<+okfn;ksa )kjk izsfjr fd;k x;k gS] vU;Fkk ,d 12 o”khZ; ckyd dks dqjhfr;ksa dk Kku bl de mez esa gksuk laHko ugha gS A vf’kf{kr lekt )kjk ckyd dks mDr dk;Z gsrq izsfjr fd;k x;k vkSj og uknku mDr d`R; dh vksj mRizsfjr gksrk jgk] mlds var%eu esa ifj.kke dh Hk;kogrk ugha vk;h] vU;Fkk og dHkh bl izdkj ds vkijkf/kd d`R; ugha djrk A ckyd va/kfo’oklh lekt dh nsu gS A pwafd ckyd foxr ukS ekg ls laLFkk esa mDr vijk/k esa fu:) gS] vr% ckyd ds loksZre fgr ,oa csgrj Hkfo”; dks ns[krs gq, tekur esa eqDr fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gS A ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k x`g v/;;u ds i’pkr~ tkap izfrosnu lknj izLrqr gS A** A bare perusal of the said report makes it clear that it is nowhere mentioned in it that if the applicant is released on bail, he would come into association with any known criminal or it would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Rather the report says that his release on bail would be in his best interest and make his future better. Perusal of section 12 of the Act of 2000 makes it clear that ordinarily the bail has to be granted to the juvenile and the same can be rejected only when it appears to the Court concerned that either of three conditions laid down in this provision are in existence. The orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Sessions Judge go to show that while passing the same both the Courts below have not at all considered the report of the Probation Officer and rejected the application of the applicant for his release on bail in a mechanical manner simply by reproducing few words of Section 12 of the Act of 2000. The aforesaid two orders passed by the Courts below do not stand on the touchstone of the relevant legal provision. From the material on record it is also apparent that no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the Juvenile Justice Board on the basis of which application of the applicant could be rejected. Rather the report of the Probation Officer is in favour of the applicant, which clearly says that his release would be in best interest and I may give him a better future. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the report of the Probation Officer, present revision petition is allowed. Orders impugned are hereby set aside. Applicant is directed to be released on bail of his, guardian or parents furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety for the like slim to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board. The applicant is directed to appear before the said Board on all the dates as are given to him. Revision Allowed.