JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(a juvenile- through his guardian father) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. This revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Child rent Act, 2000(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000') has been filed against the judgment dated 04.01.2013 passed by learned Special Judge, Dacoity Effected Area, Bharatpur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 68/2012, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur in FIR No. 274/2012 registered at Police Station Sikri, for offence under Sections 302 IPC and under Section 3/25 Arms Act, dismissing the bail application of the petitioner filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2000. 3. The allegation of offence against the petitioner is under Sections 302 IPC and under Section 3/25 Arms Act. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2000 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur was rejected vide order dated 13.12.2 012. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal under Section 52 of the Act of 2000 was filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Cour t and the same ha s been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 04.01.2013. Dissatisfied by the judgments and orders dated 04.01.2013 and 13.12.2012 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 53 of the Act of 2000 before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that impugned orders passed by the Courts below are illegal, unsustainable in the eyes of law an d totally against the provisions of law. Learned Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the petitioner is a juvenile and entitled to get benefit of provisions of the Act of 2000. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 clearly provides that if the petitioner is juvenile, then he should be released on bail, but learned Courts below fully ignored the provisions of the Act of 2000. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the present case. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since long time and no further detention of the petitioner is required for any purpose. There is no evidence to show that if the juvenile-petitioner is released on bail, then his 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. Learned Courts below in quite curs ory manner have declined bail to the applicant-petitioner. 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. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the petitioner as also the judgment passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. In compliance of order dated 26.02.2013 passed by this Court, he has produced a report of Superintendent of Juvenile Justice Home, Department of Social Justice an d Empowerment, Bharatpur, Camp Sikri in which the character and conduct of the petitioner has been found very good and as per the report, if the petitioner-juvenile is released on bail, then his release is not likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would not defeat ends of justice. Report No. 1543 dated 16.05.2013 submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor is taken on record and relevant portion of the report reads as under: " pky&pyu% mifLFkr mDr iM+ksfl;ksa us crk;k fd fof/k la?k"kZjr ckyd fujHkksflag mQZ jktk iq= Hkjrflag bl ?kVuk ls iwoZ fdlh Hkh vijkf/kd ?kVuk esa fyIr ugha jgk gS xkao esa lHkh oxZ ds yksxksa ls vPNk O;ogkj jgk gS vutkus esa bl ?kVuk dks vUtke fn;k x;k gS ckyd us fdl gfFk;kj ls gR;k dh rFkk dgk ls yk;k gesa dksbZ tkudkjh ughsa gSA ?kVuk ls iwoZ ckyd dk pky pyu vPNk jgk gSA vfHk"kalk% & mijksDr leLr rF;ksa dks e/; utj j[krs gq;s ,slk izfrr gksrk gS fd foi{kh ikVhZ ds ruko o vkdzks'k esa gksus ds dkj.k ckyd dk thou [krjs esa gks ldrk gSA fjiksVZ Jheku~ dh lsok esa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr gSA " 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2000 and the Report No. 1543 dated 16.05.2013 submitted by learned Public Prosecutor. 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. 7. The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 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. 8. In this context, I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the courts below, FIR of the case as well as the report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor. 9. 8. In this context, I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the courts below, FIR of the case as well as the report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor. 9. 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 of 2000, is made out. The learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned Appellate Court have not properly appreciate d the provisions envisaged under Section 12 of the Act of 2000. In my humble opinion, the Act of 2000 being a beneficiary and social reform s oriented legislation, should be given full effect by all concerned, whenever matters relating to juvenile come for consideration before them. After considering the report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor, it would be in the interest of justice that in the present case natural guardian, i.e. father of the petitioner is directed to specially look after the juvenile-petitioner and ensure that no harm to his life is caused by the opposite party. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur as well as judgment dated 04.01.2013 passed by learne d Special Judge, Dacoity Effected Area, Bharatpur, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside. 11. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Raja Singh @ Nirbho Singh S/o. Shri Bhar at Singh shall be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian(father), Shri Bharat Singh in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur; 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/trial in the case and further that his guardian is specially directed to look after that no harm to the life of juvenile is caused by the opposite party and he shall keep proper look after of the delinquent child and secure him away from the company of known criminals.Revision allowed. *******