Mr. Goverdhan Bardhar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile through his natural guardian) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections 19/54, 14/57 & 54-A of Rajasthan Excise Act. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 437 Cr.P.C. before Juvenile Justice Board, Jalore was rejected vide order dated 30-08-2016. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 03-09-2016. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 30- 08-2016 and 03-09-2016 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that impugned orders passed by the Courts below are illegal, unsustainable in the eyes of law and totally against the provisions of law. Learned Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the petitioner is juvenile and entitled to get benefit of provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act clearly provides that if the accused is juvenile, then he should be released on bail, but learned Courts below fully ignored the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. The petitioner is in custody since long time and no further detention of the petitioner is required for any purpose. There is no evidence to show that if the juvenile-petitioner is released on bail, then his 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 ends of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. Learned Courts below in quite cursory manner have declined bail to the applicant-petitioner. He placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Prakash v. State reported in 2006 Cri.L.J 1373, Amandeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2011 Cri.L.J 1599.

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the petitioner as also the judgment passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.

6. It appears that for the protection of juvenile, this special Act has been enacted. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act indicates that if a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such juvenile 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.

7. The language of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act 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 bail can be denied only in the case where there appears 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 ends of justice.

8. In this context, I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the courts below.

9. Having carefully examined provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act vis-a-vis the orders passed by the courts below and the report of the Probation Office, I do not find that any of the exceptional circumstances, to decline bail to a juvenile, as indicated in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, is made out.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dat