JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile-through his natural guardian Father Gurraj Singh S/o Darshan Singh) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections 8/21, 22 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act. The bail application filed by the petitioner under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sri Ganganagar was rejected vide order dated 11.03.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.1, Sri Ganganagar and the same has been dismissed by learned Special Judge, (POCSO Act Cases) No.1, Sri Ganganagar, vide impugned order dated 14.03.2019. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 11.03.2019 and 14.03.2019 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recovered contraband is below commercial quantity and co-accused Hardeep Singh @ Hippu has already been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.04.2019 passed in S.B.Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4561/2019. It is further submitted that 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 them to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

4. It is argued that learned Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the petitioner is juvenile and entitled to get benefit of provisions of the Act of 2015. Section 12 of the Act of 2015 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 Act of 2015. The petitioner is in custody since long time and no further detention of the petitioner is required for any purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile.

5. 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. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2015.

6. The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 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. In this context, I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the courts below.

7. Having carefully examined provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act vis-a-vis the orders passed by the courts below, I do not find that any of the exceptional circumstances, to decline bail to a juvenile, as indicated in Section 12 of the Act of 2015, is made out. Moreover, recovered contraband is below commercial quantity and co-accused Hardeep Singh @ Hippu has already been granted bai.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sri Ganganagar as well as order dated 14.03.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, (POCSO Act Cases) No.1, Sri Ganganagar, declining bail to the petitioner is hereby set aside.

9. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner