JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (a juvenile through his natural guardian-father), learned Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. 2. This revision petition under section 397/401 Criminal Procedure Code read with section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been filed against the order dated 20th January, 2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churn in Cr.Appeal No.02/2012 whereby the court below dismissed appeal of the petitioner moved under section 52 of the Act and uphold order dated 13th January, 2012 dismissing him bail under section 12 of the 2000 passed by the Principal Magistrate. Juvenile Justice Board, Churn in CR No.253/ 2011, registered at Police Station-Hameerwas (Churu) for offences punishable under section 302, 201 IPC. 3. The allegation of offence against the petitioner is murder of a teenage boy of his village. The petitioner is stated to be around 17 years of age. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused-juvenile is student of B.A. Part-I and he has been falsely implicated in the offence, he was not named in the FIR, there is no eye-witness to the alleged offence of murder and the Police arrested the accused-petitioner merely on the basis of suspicion. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the gravity of the offence committed can not 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 & 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, Churu, 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. 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. 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 of the Probation Officer about conduct of the petitioner, produced by the learned Public Prosecutor in pursuance to order dated 14.03.2012 passed by this Court. The Superintendent, Juvenile Home, Churu, by his certificate dated 17/19.03.2012 reported that since his induction in the Juvenile Home on 26.12.2011, 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 13th January, 2012 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Churu as well as order dated 20th January, 2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Churn, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside. 12. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Sonu @ Somveer s/o. Hoshiyar Singh shall he released on hail, upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (father) in the sum of Rs. 12. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Sonu @ Somveer s/o. Hoshiyar Singh shall he released on hail, 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, Churn; 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. *******