1. - By this revision petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 12th July, 2010 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur in FIR No.145/2010 police station Pragpura for the offence under section 8/15 NDPS Act whereby the application for grant of bail has been rejected and that of the order dated 20th July, 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur city, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.722/2010 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts, for the disposal of the present petition, are that on 15th May, 2010, a report was submitted by the SHO, Police Station Pragpura to the effect that while he was on petrolling duty, suddenly a vehicle (Tata 207) was seen by him which was going towards Kotputli at a very fast speed. The vehicle was followed and intercepted. In the vehicle two persons were found. On asking about their identity, they disclosed their name as Sachin Kumar and Mustkeen @ Kurban. On conducting a search of the vehicle, 505 Kg poppy straw packed in 12 bags was found and seized by the police. On the basis of above information, FIR No.145/2010 was registered at police station Pragpura for the offence under section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.

3. Inquiry in relation to age of the petitioner- Sachin was conducted and it was found that he was juvenile, therefore, an application under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after to be referred as, 'the Act') on behalf of the petitioner through his father was filed for grant of bail before the Juvenile Justice Board. The application was rejected after hearing both sides by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 12th July, 2010 for the reason that the offence was under the provisions of Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and a possibility was there that the accused may again come in contact with known criminals. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12th July, 2010, an appeal was preferred which was dismissed upholding the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned public prosecutor for the State.

5. It has been the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material available on record to justify declining bail to the petitioner who was juvenile at the time of commission of the offence. It is also contended that before bail to a juvenile is declined, it should fulfill the requirement of section 12 of the Act. It is also contended that merely by making a mention in the impugned order that the petitioner is likely to come in contact with known criminals is not enough unless there is some material available on record to justify the same. It is further contended that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline the bail. It is further contended that the courts below without taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of the Act, in a cursory manner declined bail to the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned public prosecutor has contended that the petitioner was found involved in the case along with one Mustkeen @ Kurban and from their vehicle poppy straw of commercial quantity was found, therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner should be given indulgence of bail.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and have also perused the provisions of the Act.

8. It appears that for protection of a juvenile, special Act has been enacted. Section 12 of the Act would indicate that if a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person 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. It further appears from the perusal of the above section that if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the r