JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - Challenge in the present criminal revision is to the order dated 28.07.2022 vide which the Principal Magistrate, JJB, Narnaul has dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Challenge is also to the order dated 09.08.2022 vide which the appeal filed against the said order has also been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who was a juvenile at the time of the incident, has been in custody since 27.05.2021 and the investigation is complete and the challan has been presented and there are 8 prosecution witnesses, out of which, 3 have been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time and the petitioner is not involved in any other case. It is further submitted that in the present case, no recovery of Ganja has been effected from the present petitioner and even on merits, the case of the petitioner is on a similar footing as that of co-acused Ajit and said Ajit, who is an adult, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2022 passed in CRM-M-40853-2022. It is submitted that the custody of the present petitioner is longer than that of said co-accused Ajit. It is further submitted that the impugned orders are in violation of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter 'The Act') and for the said purpose, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRR-1019 of 2020 passed in Gurkirat @ Gora versus State of Haryana.

3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the recovery, in the present case, is of commercial quantity and the petitioner, along with Ajit, had tried to stop the canter and had even broken the glass of the canter with a danda/rod and then, tried looting the said canter; and the danda has been recovered from the present petitioner. It is submitted there is likelihood that the petitioner might indulge in criminal activities.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

5. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it would be relevant to take note of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:-

Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to

. bring that person into association with any known criminal or

. expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or

. the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision."

6. A perusal of the above reproduced Section 12 of the Act would show that bail is the rule and not jail, in case of a juvenile and the same is to be refused only in case the Court comes to the conclusion on the basis of material before it that the case is covered under any of the three exceptions as mentioned in Section 12 of the Act.

7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRR-1019-2020 in case titled as 'Gurkirat @ Gora Versus State of Haryana' has held as under:-

'Prayer in this revision petition is for setting-aside the order dated 31.05.2020 passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the order dated 01.07.2020 passed by the Appellate Court vide which the regular bail application of the petitioner i