The grant of bail to juveniles under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Protection of Children) Act, 2000, is not an absolute right and is subject to the court's discretion based on factors such as the likelihood of association with criminals, exposure to danger, and the possibility of defeating the ends of justice.

1. - Aggrieved by the denial of bail, both by the Juvenile Justice Board ('the Board', for short), vide order dated 07.08.2009 and by the Sessions Judge, vide order dated 12.08.2009, the petitioners have approached this Court.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 27.07.2009, on a Parcha Bayan of Fateh chand, a FIR, FIR No.292/2009 was registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 302 IPC against the petitioners. Since both the petitioners, who were minor, were named in the FIR and since overt acts were assigned to them in the FIR, they were arrested by the Police. Subsequently, they filed an application for being released on bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('the Act', for short) before the learned Chief Magistrate and Juvenile Justice Board. However, vide order dated 07.08.2009, the said application was dismissed by the learned Board. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. However, vide order dated 12.08.2009, the learned Judge dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. Sudarshan Laddha, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that Section 12 of the Act bestows an unqualified right on the juvenile to be released on bail. Therefore, the said bail could not be denied either by the learned Board, or the by learned Judge. In order to buttress this contention, he has relied upon the cases of Chitarlal S/o Radheylal v. The State of Rajasthan, 2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 200 , Inder Raj & Anr. v. State, 2005 WLC (Raj.) UC 748 , Mahesh Soni v. State, 2007 (1) WLC (Raj.) 156 , Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (4) WLC (Raj.) 208 , Kamlesh v. The State of Rajasthan, 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC 256 and Satish & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 WLC (Raj.) UC 652 .

4. On the other hand, Mr. Javed Chaudhary, the learned public prosecutor, has vehemently contended that Section 12 of the Act does not lay down a universal principle that the juvenile is entitled to a bail. According to Section 12 of the Act, in case the Juvenile is likely to come into association with any known criminal or is likely to be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or there is a likelihood that his release would defeat the ends of justice, then under these three circumstances, the juvenile can be denied the bail. Secondly, the alleged murder is committed within the family. In case the petitioners were released, they could be threatened and attacked by other family members who have lost the deceased. Thirdly, the words "the ends of justice" should be interpreted to include the sense of justice that exists within the society at large. A heinous crime like murder shocks the very conscience of the society. If the alleged culprits of murder are permitted to be free, the conscience of the society is rattled. Therefore, the release of the petitioners on bail would defeat the ends of justice. Lastly, the law does not prescribe that a juvenile is entitled to bail by way of right. Therefore, he has supported the impugned orders.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the case law cited at the Bar, examined the challan papers submitted before this Court, and considered the impugned orders.

6. Section 12 of the Act is as under:-

12. Bail of juvenile.-

(1)When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) 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 fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose