JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against the order dated 23.01.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Appeal No.34/2015 whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the learned President, Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur rejecting the application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act in CR No.124/2014, P.S. Nagori Gate, Jodhpur has been dismissed. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 03.10.2014, the complainant Smt. Sukha Devi lodged an FIR at P.S. Nagori Gate, Jodhpur alleging therein that she resides Near Mahamandir Railway Station, Jodhpur and near her plot, one Daulat Singh Solanki resides with his family. At about 9.30 a.m., daughter of Daulat Singh Solanki, viz. Neha Solanki was working with other labourers, then Dinesh, Rakesh, Bohmaram, Manish, Hemraj, Mangilal, Pramod, Gajendra and other persons, residents of Ramgadhi Chhatravas, came there armed with sticks and pipes and threatened the labourers to move out from there and after that all the accused persons pushed Neha Solanki on the floor and started molesting her dignity. On seeing this, complainant and one Bablu came to rescue her. The accused gave pipe blow on the head of Bablu. Thereafter, one Budharam Bishnoi came to the rescue but all the accused gave repeated lathi blows to Budharam Bishnoi. On hearing hue and cry, residents of the vicinity reached there then all the accused ran away. 3. On this report, FIR No.124/2014 was registered at P.S. Nagori Gate, Jodhpur and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, the petitioner and other accused were taken into custody and since the petitioner is a juvenile, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur. The father of the petitioner 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 20.01.2015. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2015, the petitioner preferred an appeal but the same has also been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan vide order dated 23.01.2015. Hence, this revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned courts below have rejected the bail application of the petitioner only on the ground that on his release he may come in association with hardened criminals and it will result into failure of justice. Hence, this revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned courts below have rejected the bail application of the petitioner only on the ground that on his release he may come in association with hardened criminals and it will result into failure of justice. Whereas, as per the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 2000, bail can be denied to a juvenile only 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. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in Ameer Khan v. State of Rajasthan, [SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 1320/2011, decided on 20.12.2011 ]. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition in general- 7. The provisions of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 are mandatory and the intention of the legislature is to grant bail to a juvenile irrespective of nature or gravity of offence and the bail can be denied only in the case where 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. 8. In the case of Ameer Khan (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this court, while considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held that in the matters relating to juveniles enlargement on bail is a normal phenomenon and rejection of that is an exception. The adjudicating court is required to examine apprehensions about association with criminals or about his exposure to moral, physical or psychological danger and granted bail. 9. The adjudicating court is required to examine apprehensions about association with criminals or about his exposure to moral, physical or psychological danger and granted bail. 9. This court also, in catena of decisions including the judgment delivered in the case of Shakti Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2014(1) RLW (Raj.) 276 , while' relying upon the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has held that bail to the juvenile can only be refused if anyone of the grounds envisaged in Section 12 of the Act exists and so far as gravity is concerned, it is not covered under Section 12 of the Act. It was also observed that the Parliament reconsidered the entire matter and repealed the old Act of 1986 by introducing new Act No.56 of 2000, raising the age from 16 to 18 years and this was 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. So far as the ground of dismissal of bail application on the ground that his release may bring the juvenile into association with known criminal is concerned, this court, while considering the definition of the word "association" held that the single instance of a child delinquent joining the company of some known criminal or criminals would not be sufficient to. satisfy the definition of the word "association" used in Section 12 of the Act | and if his past conduct has been of such a nature, which indicates his continuous association with known criminal or criminals, then there would; be justification for inferring that there would be likelihood that his release; may bring him in association with known criminals. 10. So far as failure of justice is concerned, without any material on record, which shows that release of juvenile on bail shall result into failure of justice, it cannot be said that allowing bail application of a juvenile irrespective of gravity of offence amounts to failure of justice. 11. In the case in hand, the report of the Probation Officer was called and perused, wherein nothing adverse was reported against the petitioner nor it was reported that his past conduct was of such a nature which could indicate his continuous association with known criminal or criminals. 12. 11. In the case in hand, the report of the Probation Officer was called and perused, wherein nothing adverse was reported against the petitioner nor it was reported that his past conduct was of such a nature which could indicate his continuous association with known criminal or criminals. 12. Both the courts below rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of gravity of the offence and that his release may bring him in association with hardened criminals which may put his life into danger and that will result into failure of justice. 13. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any special reason to hold that there is any possibility that on his release, the petitioner may come in association with hardened criminals which may put his life into danger or there will be any failure of justice. 14. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.01.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan as well as the order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the learned President, Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur are hereby quashed. 15. Let the revisionist Sunder Lal S/o Shri Saturam be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond amounting to Rs. 40,000/-by his natural guardian, father with two solvent sureties amounting to Rs. 20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur with stipulation that the revisionist juvenile will be produced on each and every date of hearing before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur or where the case is being transferred and whenever called upon to do so. Further, he, along with members of family will keep a watch over the juvenile that he may not indulge in any other criminal activity.Petition Allowed. *******