JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through representative) as well as learned Public Prosecutor ap- pearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is of offence/s lev- elled against him in the matter. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before the con- cerned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, was rejected vide impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide im- pugned order.

3. Being aggrieved of the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident took place with regard to dispute pertaining to agricultural field. Counsel further submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity and just to harass and humiliate the petitioner and to spoil his future career. As per allegations, no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner-juvenile.

5. Learned counsel for the petit