JUDGMENT 1. -This is a revision petition against the order dated 17.09.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Appeal No.81/2013 (Rakesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan) confirming the order dated 13.09.2013 passed by the learned Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Churu in relation to FIR No.48/2013, PS Mahila Thana, Churu under Sections 304B, 498A and 406 IPC. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 19.06.2013, Balram presented himself before the P.S. Mahila Thana, Churu and submitted a written report alleging therein that his elder daughter Mohani has got married with one Mukesh and his other daughter Meera has got married with Rakesh. Soon after marriage, they were tortured. On 18.06.2013 at about 2-3 O'clock his daughter Meera called him on telephone and asked to meet her. Thereafter, he talked with Srichand. On 19.06.2013, Srichand phoned him and asked him to come to Khinvsar and on asking he told that his daughter Meera is not well, on which his son, cousin brother and brother-in-law went to Khinvsar where they came to know that Meera suffered heart-attack due to which she died. 3. On this report, FIR No.48/2013 under Sections 304B, 498A and 406 IPC was registered at Mahila Thana, Churu and the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, wherefrom he was sent to the Observation Home, Churu. The grand mother of delinquent preferred an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for releasing him on bail but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2013. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2013, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Churu but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 17.09.2013. Hence, this revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a juvenile and gravity of offence cannot be considered against the juvenile. He further submitted that the petitioner is of 17 years 11 months of age and there is no ground to convict him for the said offences. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition in general. 7. The report of the Probation Officer was called and perused, wherein nothing adverse was reported against the petitioner. 8. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition in general. 7. The report of the Probation Officer was called and perused, wherein nothing adverse was reported against the petitioner. 8. In view of fact that the revisionist is a juvenile, his bail application is liable to be considered in accordance with Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Juvenile Act'), which provides:- 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 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. (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 enquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order." 9. A perusal of Section 12 of the Juvenile Act reveals that a juvenile is entitled to bail notwithstanding gravity of the crime. His bail can be refused only when there are reasonable grounds for believing that 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 the ends of justice. His bail can be refused only when there are reasonable grounds for believing that 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 the ends of justice. It is also manifest that the said Section 12 of the Juvenile Act over-rides the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') and other laws for the time being in force and, therefore, in the event of any inconsistency, Section 12 of the Juvenile Act will prevail. 10. Bail to the juvenile can only be refused if anyone of the grounds envisaged in Section 12 of the Juvenile Act exist. So far as the ground of gravity is concerned, it is not covered under the above provisions of the Act. If the bail application of the juvenile was to be considered under the provisions of the Code, there would have been absolutely no necessity for the implement of the aforesaid act. The language that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, the juvenile accused shall be released. Not only this, the Parliament re-considered the entire matter and repealed the old Act of 1986 by introducing new Act No.56 of 2000, realising the age from 16 to 18 years. This has been done keeping in view the welfare of the child so that even after committing an offence, a child may not become a hardened criminal but he may reform himself. 11. Both the courts below rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of gravity of the offence and keeping in mind that the petitioner is only 16 days less in 18 years of age. 12. Since legislation has decided the age of juvenile, which is less than 18 years, therefore, the age of juvenile though it is 16 days less in 18 years of age, but he is juvenile as per the Act and is entitled to invoke the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act. 13. Thus, I am of the view that there would be no justification for inferring that after 18 days, he will be major and is not entitled for the provision of Juvenile Justice Act. 13. Thus, I am of the view that there would be no justification for inferring that after 18 days, he will be major and is not entitled for the provision of Juvenile Justice Act. Since word "shall" has been used in language of section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, therefore, this petition deserves to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.09.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu as well as the order dated 13.09.2013 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Churu are hereby quashed. 15. Let the revisionist Rakesh Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond amounting to Rs. 50,000/- by his natural guardian, grand mother Ummi Devi Wd./o Shri Bhera Ram with two sound and solvent sureties amounting to Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Churu with stipulation that the revisionist juvenile will be produced on each and every date of hearing before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Chittorgarh or where the case is being transferred and whenever called upon to do so. Further, she along with members of family will keep watch over the juvenile that the juvenile may not indulge in any other criminal activity.Petition Allowed. *******