IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1743 of 2009 DEOSHEEL @ SUNNY THAKUR,son of Sri Ravindra Thakur,resident of Laxmi Chowk,Soda Godown, P.S.-Brahampura,Dist.-Muzaffarpur. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/ 17-11-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This revision has been filed against order dated 15-10- 2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Cr.Appeal No.105 of 2009, by which he has dismissed the appeal affirming order dated 27-08-2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur in Brahmpura P.S.Case No.79 of 2009 whereby prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected. In the case dacoity with murder also reported, investigated and petitioner’s name also appeared but he has been declared juvenile and prayer for bail was made on his behalf which has been refused. Grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner can never be treated as an adult accused. A legislation is there giving some privilege, namely Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Its Section 12 runs as follows : “12. Bail of juvenile-(1)When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is 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 institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear 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 the ends of justice. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released 2 on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub- section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.” So, the bail to a juvenile is a rule, rejection is exception and within a limited scope that can be refused only if reasonable ground appears to believe that release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice, which has not been taken into consideration either by the Juvenile Justice Board or by the learned Sessions Judge. So, their conclusion can never be left to sustain. I am also of the view that no bail shall be or can be refused without taking into consideration of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which has not been done in the case. Therefore, order of the Juvenile Justice Board passed in Brahmpura P.S.Case No.79 of 2009 as well as order of the Sessions Judge passed in Cr.Appeal No.105 of 2009 is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur for deciding the same afresh taking into consideration of Section 12 of the said Act. Accordingly, this revision application is allowed. Let the order be communicated through fax at the cost of the petitioner. AH/ ( Mandhata Singh, J. )