JUDGMENT Goverdhan Bardhar, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (a juvenile-through his guardian Uncle) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is under Sections 376, 243, 342, 323 & 363 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajsamand was rejected vide order dated 03.08.2016. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal under Section 52 of the Act of 2015 was filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, Rajsamand (hereinafter "the Appellate Court") and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 10.08.2016. Dissatisfied by the orders dated 03.08.2016 and 10.08.2016 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that impugned orders passed by the Courts below are illegal, unsustainable in the eyes of law and 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 2015. Section 12 of the Act of 2015 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 2015. 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 cursory manner have declined bail to the applicant-petitioner. 4. 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. 5. Learned Courts below in quite cursory manner have declined bail to the applicant-petitioner. 4. 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. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2015. 6. It appears that for the protection of juvenile, this special Act has been enacted. Section 12 of the Act of 2015 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 2015 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. 9. Having carefully examined provisions of the Act of 2015 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 2015, is made out. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 03.08.2016 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajsamand as well as order dated 10.08.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside. 11. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Bhairu Singh S/o Laxman Singh shall be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (Uncle), Hon Singh S/o Prithvi Singh in the sum of Rs. 11. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Bhairu Singh S/o Laxman Singh shall be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (Uncle), Hon Singh S/o Prithvi Singh in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) along with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajsamand; 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 that his guardian shall keep proper look after of the delinquent child and secure him away from the company of known criminals.