1. - This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to be as 'the Act') against the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Alwar in Criminal Appeal No.167/2010 whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 19.10.2010 rejecting the bail application filed under Section 12 of the Act passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar in criminal case (FIR) No.190/2010 at PS-Bhiwadi, Alwar for offence under Section 395 and 458 IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor for the State and also Sh.Sabuddin, father of the petitioner, who is present in person today.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 26.4.2010 one Kartar Singh, Manager of M/s. Vidhya Metal Manufacturing Co.Pvt. Limited, RIICO Ind. Area, Bhiwadi lodged a written report at P.S. Bhiwadi to the effect that at about 3.00 am, 10-12 people laced with weapons jumped the factory gate and loading the gun on the guard. They caused him beatings and snatched his vallet and mobile. On his making hue and cry, they fired in the air and broke the office glass by throwing stones and also threatened to kill the guard. They also broke the shutter of the work-shop plant and threatening the workers, they took about 4500-5000 kgs of copper wire bundles and copper scrap in the vehicles they brought.

4. On this report, criminal case (FIR) No. 190/2010 under Sections 458 and 380 IPC was registered and the present petitioner being a juvenile was taken into custody and sent to juvenile home. His bail application filed before the Juvenile Justice Board was dismissed vide order dated 19.10.2010.

5. As against the order dated 19.10.10, an appeal was preferred before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Alwar which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2010 which has been assailed before this Court.

6. The learned Sessions Judge as also the Juvenile Justice Board dismissed the application under Section 12 of 'the Act' on the main ground that, besides the present case, the petitioner is also involved in two more cases of same nature along with other 10-12 accused persons who are common in all the three cases. It has been observed by learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order that the perusal of the case diary pertaining to the three matters, shows that the petitioner alongwith co-accused have committed decoity in M/s. Vidhya Metal Manufacturing Co.Pvt. Limited. He and his other co-accused have also committed robbery in the same manner in other industry namely M/s.Best Industries, for which case no.189/2010 under Sections 458 & 380 IPC; and case no. 202/2010 under Section 395 IPC have been registered.

7. The learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal preferred on behalf of juvenile, observed that the petitioner alongwith other accused persons was involved in commission of serious offences of decoity, robbery and theft and that the circumstances show that by his release, there was all possibility of his coming into association with known criminals and expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Out of three cases, two pertain to the occurrence of 26.4.10 itself and that it was not possible for anybody to commit the two dacoities during the same night. His argument was that just because Bolero Jeep owned by petitioner's father has been found involved in the commission of offence, that itself does not prove any case against the petitioner.

9. It was further argued that no recovery has been made from him nor is he named in the FIR and that his test identification parade has also not been conducted. Arguing that the provisions of Section 12 of 'the Act' are mandatory, therefore, the petitioner should be released on bail.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed