JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, a juvenile, was charged for the offence of chain snatching of one Suchita as pillion rider on a motorbike and for that FIR No.129 of 2014 was registered at Kotwali Police Station, Bhilwara and during investigation petitioner was arrested. Being juvenile, petitioner invoked Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, Act of 2000) and preferred an application under the aforesaid Section before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bhilwara. The said application of the petitioner did not find favour from Juvenile Justice Board and the same was rejected vide order dated 17th of May 2014. Being aggrieved by the order of Juvenile Justice Board, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara but the said effort of the petitioner also proved abortive and the learned Sessions Judge by impugned order dated 2nd of June 2014 rejected the appeal. 2. Appalled by the judgment of the appellate Court, petitioner has preferred this revision petition through his natural guardian father under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 54 of the Act of 2000. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ramesh Purohit, has argued that both the Courts below have committed grave and serious error of law and fact in declining bail to the petitioner and the impugned orders are contrary to the aims and objects of the Act of 2000, and therefore, are not sustainable. Mr. Purohit has submitted that Act of 2000 is special Act and its main object is to provide for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of delinquent juveniles. Thus, according to learned counsel, the basic object of the Act is to reform the juveniles and not to penalise them for their delinquencies. With these submissions, learned counsel has urged that both the impugned orders are not sustainable and petitioner is liable to be released on bail by exercising revisional jurisdiction. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Pankaj Awasthi, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that though petitioner is juvenile but his delinquency is of serious nature as he was involved in offence of extortion and has snatched chain of the complainant lady, therefore, no interference in the impugned orders is warranted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 6. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 6. It is not in dispute that the Act of 2000 is inspired by clause (e) & (f) of Article 39 as well as Article 45 & 47 of the Constitution whereby a primary responsibility is imposed on the State to ensure all needs of children and to preserve and protect their basic human rights. Element of deterrence and any act/omission which may develop fear psychosis amongst juvenile offender is dehors the Act of 2000. Thus, in totality, in my considered opinion, both the Courts below have committed grave and serious error of law and have acted against the basic tenets of the Act of 2000 by not enlarging him on bail. The reasons spelt out by both the learned Courts below are absolutely alien and contrary to basic objects of the Act of 2000. In this view of the matter, this revision petition deserves acceptance. 7. Resultantly, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara and the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board are quashed and set aside and petitioner juvenile Ramlal is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 40,000/- by his natural guardian father Bherulal and two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhilwara. The natural guardian i.e. father of the juvenile (petitioner) shall ensure his presence before the Juvenile Justice Board on each and every date of hearing and when the juvenile is called upon to do so by the learned Juvenile Justice Board.Revision allowed. *******