JUDGMENT :

B.N. Karia, J.

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent -State.

2. This application is filed, by the applicant praying for suspension of sentence vide judgement and order dated 21.10.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 2021 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Children Court, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad and requesting to enlarge the applicant on bail till the hearing and final disposal of the captioned Criminal Revision Application.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that impugned judgement and order is contrary to law and evidence on record. That, the case of the applicant does not fall under the exception as per the Juvenile Justice Act and therefore, bail is mandatory for counseling a child i.e. juvenile. That, learned trial Judge has erred for not granting bail in Section 12 of Juvenile Act to the applicant-accused for offences punishable under the Arms Act which is registered at Narol Police Station on 27.7.2021, there were two FIRs in one offence. That, learned Sessions Judge has materially erred in law for not granting bail to the juvenile. That, learned Sessions Judge as well as ld. Magistrate ought to have considered the fact that the complainant has not come with clean hands before the Court, because serious lacuna was made by the ld. Juvenile Court as well as Ld. Appellate Court. That, learned Appellate Court as well as ld. Juvenile Court have not considered the parity of the applicant - accused. That, there is no independent evidence or corroboration to the allegations made in the complaint against the applicant. That, hearing of the revision application will take long time and till then, judicial custody of the applicant would not be required. That, at present applicant is in judicial custody since August, 2021. He has requested to enlarge the applicant on bail till the hearing and final disposal of the captioned Criminal Revision Application.

4. Learned APP for the respondent -State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that serious offence was committed by the applicant, however, he was juvenile accused. That, as he was accompanied the accused No. 1, against whom, serious allegations are made in the complaint. That, prima facie involvement of the present applicant is established by the prosecution and therefore, no benefit u/s. Section 12 of the Juvenile Act is to be given to the present applicant. Hence, learned APP for the respondent-State has requested this Court to dismiss the present application.

5. Having heard learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned APP for the respondent -State, it appears that present applicant is involved in the offence, as FIR came to be registered before the Narol Police Station on 27.7.2021. As per the case of prosecution, the age of the present applicant was 17 years and 9 months. The main allegations were made against accused No. 1 namely Jadish alias Monu Arjunbhai Prajapati. It also appears that the applicant is in judicial custody since August, 2021.

6. Here, this Court would like to refer Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act, 2015 which provides as under:

(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is a alleged to have committed a bailable or non bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, Such Person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any person.

Provided that such person shall not be released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the