JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through representative) as well as learned Public Prosecutor ap- pearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is of offence/s lev- elled against him in the matter. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before the con- cerned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, was rejected vide impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide im- pugned order. 3. Being aggrieved of the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident took place with regard to dispute pertaining to agricultural field. Counsel further submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity and just to harass and humiliate the petitioner and to spoil his future career. As per allegations, no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner-juvenile. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under the Juvenile Justice Act, bail application can be dis- missed only on the following grounds:- (i) if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal (ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and (iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 6. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner further submitted that petitioner is below 18 years of age and he has been falsely involved in the case without any material evidence. Further there is no evidence to show that if the juvenile-petitioner is released on bail, then his release is likely to bring him into asso- ciation 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 argued that learned Courts below have not appre- ciated the fact that the petitioner is 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 accused is juvenile, then he should be released on bail, but learned Courts below fully ignored the provisions of the Act of 2015. Section 12 of the Act of 2015 clearly provides that if the accused 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 and no further detention of the petitioner is required for any purpose. 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. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2015. 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 Proba- tion Officer or under the care of any fit institution. 9. The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 conveys the intention of the Legislature to grant bail to the juvenile, irre- spective 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 ex-pose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his re- lease would defeat ends of justice. 10. In this context, I have also scanned through and pe- rused the orders passed by the courts below. 11. Having carefully examined provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 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. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision peti- tion is allowed and the impugned orders passed by courts below, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside. 13. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision peti- tion is allowed and the impugned orders passed by courts below, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside. 13. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner herein shall be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond by rep- resentative, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of concerned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board; 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.