1. - By this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.01.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dismissing the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner in FIR No.493/2010 of Police Station, Nokha , District Bikaner under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice ( Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Munni submitted a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Nokha alleging interalia that her daughter Manju , studying in the Adarsh Vidhya Mandir School , went to school on 08.11.2010 but did not return. It was further alleged that on 10.11.2010, Bhera Ram dropped her daughter in front of her house in the night, then her daughter informed her that on 08.11.2010 when she reached Shiv Mandir , Raju and Suresh took her in their motor cycle and thereafter, Raju sent her by Bus with Suresh to Bikaner. There they stayed in the Dharamshala and Suresh committed rape on her.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Nokha sent the complaint to the SHO, Police Station Nokha for investigation under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The police arrested the petitioner and produced him before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner. The petitioner moved an application under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children ) Act, 2000 for bail but the same wasdefended the order of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge.

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

5. It appears that for protection of juveniles, Special Act has been enacted. Section 12 of the Act indicates 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.

6. With regard to gravity and nature of the offence is concerned, this court in the case of Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2007(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 254 , in para 3 has observed that the language of Section 12 of the Act using the word "shall", is mandatory and it provides non-obstante clause by using the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force", which conveys the intention of the legislature to grant bail to the juvenile, irrespective of nature or gravity of the offence, alleged to have been committed by him and the bail can be denied only in the case where there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

7. In view of the provisions contained in the Act, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether the bail was rightly declined to the accusedpetitioner under Section 12 of the Act and the appeal preferred against the order declining bail, has rightly been rejected.

8. After carefully examining the provisions of the Act, I do not find that in both the impugned orders no exceptional circumstance as indicated in Section 12 of the Act, to decline bail to the juvenile, is made out. The learned Magistrate, as well as the learned appellate court, have not properly appreciated the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the Act and other provisions, in relation to the juvenile and merely on the basis of apprehension the bail has been declined. In my opinion, the Act being a beneficiary and social oriented legislation, should be given full effect by all concerned, whenever the matter relating to juvenile comes for consideration before them.

9. The net result of the above discussion is that the revision petition is allo