JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned coimsel for the petitioner (a juvenile through his guardian father) as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 24.2.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No. 19/2012 whereby the Court below dismissed appeal of the petitioner and uphold order dated 23.2.2012 dismissing him bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner in F.I.R. 1/2012, registered at Police Station-Jainsar for offences punishable under Sections 342, 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. 3. The allegation of offence against the petitioner is abduction by enticing, detaining and rape with a girl of his village aged 13 years. The petitioner is stated to be a teen-age student of class 10th. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant family used to lodge false criminal cases against people of the village. Previously, in the year 2006 younger daughter of the complainant lodged a case under Section 376 I.P.C. against Kumbha Ram, in the year 2008 daughter-in-law of complainant lodged another case of rape against Kumbha Ram and in the year 2011, case of rape was lodged against father of the petitioner. In none of these cases, allegations found corroborated by evidence of witnesses and medical evidence also falsified the allegations so made. 5. It is further contended that the petitioner is a teen, studying in Class-X. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. He further contended that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are not based upon definite facts and they are based on surmises and conjectures. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining bail to the petitioner as also the appellate order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, upholding order of the Juvenile Justice Board. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel from both sides and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2000. It appears that for the protection of juvenile, this special Act has been enacted. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel from both sides and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2000. It appears that for the protection of juvenile, this special Act has been enacted. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 indicates that if a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such juvenile 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. 8. The language of Section 12 of the Act 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 bail can be denied only in the case where there appears 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 ends of justice. 9. In this context, I have also scanned through the case diary and report about conduct of the petitioner, produced by the learned Public Prosecutor in pursuance to order dated 14.3.2012 passed by this Court. The Superintendent, Juvenile Home, Bikaner, by his certificate dated 21.3.2012 reported that since his induction in the juvenile Home on 3.1.2012, throughout the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner has been good. 10. Having carefully examined provisions of the Act of 2000 vis-a-vis the orders passed by the Courts below, I do not find that any of the exceptional circumstances to decline bail to a juvenile, as indicated in Section 12 of the Act, is made out. The learned Principal Magistrate as well as learned Sessions judge have not properly appreciated the provisions envisaged under Section 12 of the Act of 2000. In my humble opinion, the Act of 2000 being a beneficiary and social reforms oriented legislation, should be given full effect by all concerned, whenever matters relating to juvenile come for consideration before them. 11. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 23.2.2012 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile justice Board, Bikaner as well as order dated 24.2.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside. 12. 11. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 23.2.2012 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile justice Board, Bikaner as well as order dated 24.2.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside. 12. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Jai Narain S/o Mansukh Ram shall be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (father) in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- along with a surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner, with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall appear before the said Court or any other Court, during pendency of the investigation in the case and that his guardian shall keep proper look after of the delinquent child and secure him away from the company of known criminals. 13. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.Revision allowed. *******