ORDER : Inderjeet Singh, J. 1. The petitioner Karamjeet Singh son of Bhura Singh through his natural guardian mother - Smt. Rajkaur wife of Bhura Singh has led this revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “the Act of 2015”) to challenge the Order dated 18.05.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar (for short “learned appellate court”) confirming the Order dated 01.05.2017 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sri Ganganagar (for short “learned Board”). 2. Facts apposite for the purpose of this revision petition are that pursuant to the F.I.R. No. 144/2017 of Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 447 & 34 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 & 27 of the Arms Act, the petitioner was apprehended and thereafter, sent to the Observation Home. Being juvenile on the date of incident, on his behalf his natural guardian mother filed an application under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before the learned Board seeking bail. 3. The learned Board vide its Order dated 01.05.2017 declined prayer of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed by the petitioner but the learned appellate court rejected the same vide Order dated 18.05.2017. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the learned courts below have not recorded reasons for declining prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail. Learned counsel would contend that Section 12 of the Act of 2015 envisages with clarity and precision that notwithstanding anything contained in CrPC or any other law for the time being in force, a juvenile or child in conflict with law be released with or without surety, unless it is shown that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, social or psychological danger. It is argued by the learned counsel that no such reason is forthcoming either from the order of the appellate court or from the order passed by the learned Board. 5. This Court vide Order dated 01.06.2017 called the report of the Probation Officer in this matter and the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the report of the Probation Officer dated 01.06.2017 in this regard. As per the said report, behaviour of the juvenile was found satisfactory by the Superintendent concerned. 6. 5. This Court vide Order dated 01.06.2017 called the report of the Probation Officer in this matter and the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the report of the Probation Officer dated 01.06.2017 in this regard. As per the said report, behaviour of the juvenile was found satisfactory by the Superintendent concerned. 6. Lastly, learned counsel argued that both learned appellate court as well as learned Board have not examined the matter in right perspective and therefore, interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is warranted. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that looking to the gravity of offence attributed to the juvenile, impugned orders are not liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned public prosecutor. Perused impugned orders as well as material available on record. 9. While considering the bail plea of juvenile, the courts are expected to adopt a pragmatic approach rather than purely idealistic and pedantic approach as the basic object of the Act of 2015 is to protect human rights of children and provide them congenial atmosphere for reformation and therefore, in the matter of grant of bail, a liberal approach is the need of the hour. 10. After going through the record of the case and the report dated 01.06.2017 submitted by the Superintendent and also looking to the tender age of the juvenile, in my considered view, both the learned courts below have seriously erred in declining to exercise discretion in his favour for grant of bail. 11. Accordingly, I feel persuaded to exercise revisional jurisdiction in the matter to upset both the impugned orders passed by the learned Board as well as learned appellate court below. 12. In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, impugned orders suffers from the vice of impropriety and therefore, merit interferences in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 13. In the result, both impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside and the revision petition is allowed. As a consequence, the juvenile - Karamjeet Singh son of Bhura Singh is ordered to be released on bail provided requisite bail bond is furnished by his guardian mother - Smt. Rajkaur wife of Bhura Singh in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each including one local surety to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Sri Ganganagar.