1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Crl. Revision Petition No.212/2010 (Anurag Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of Order : 12.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Rahul Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr.Laxman Meena, PP. By the Court: This petition has been filed on rejection of application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2000”). The petitioner was held to be below the age of 18 years, however, he was not granted bail despite the mandate of Section 12 of the Act of 2000. The petitioner preferred an appeal, however, the same was also dismissed, hence this revision petition. It is urged that other co-accused in the present matter were granted bail by the Coordinate Bench and the case of the present petitioner is not different than that of the co-accused. There is nothing on record to show that the case is falling under any of the exception given under Section 12 of the Act of 2000 to deny benefit of bail. The merit of offence cannot be taken as a ground to deny bail. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer is to grant bail by accepting this revision petition. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that denial of bail to the petitioner is proper as the case of the present petition is not similar to that of the co-accused, who were granted bail. The petitioner was lastly seen in the company of deceased and the way in which the occurrence has been given cause, shows that petitioner was mainly behind the occurrence. It is a case where, a child below the age of 18 years was killed with the help of “Chaku” and “Panja”, which were the weapons used by the habitual criminals. The Court below has taken note of the aforesaid and looking to over all circumstances, there exists possibility of the petitioner to remain in the company of such persons, which may again cause occurrence. Looking to the aforesaid, it is submitted that the release of the petitioner is not in the interest of justice. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and find that largely merit of the occurrence has been considered by the Court below whereas the merit of the occurrence cannot be made as a ground to deny benefit of bail in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 2000. At the same time, it is necessary to see that bail may not be granted to a juvenile, who can fall in any of the exceptional circumstances given under Section 12 of the Act of 2000. Since, the Court below has not gone into the aforesaid material, thus I am of the view that the case needs to be remanded to the Appellate Court with a direction to decide the matter again after taking note of the provisions of Section 3 12 of the Act of 2000. For ready reference, Section 12 of the Act of 2000 is quoted hereunder: “Section 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 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.” It is further directed that the Appellate Court will look into the fact as to whether the case is falling in any of the exception given under Section 4 12 of the Act of 2000 and thereupon, pass necessary order. With the aforesaid direction, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned orders herein. The parties are directed to remain present before the Appellate Court on 22.03.2010. (M.N. BHANDARI),J. Preety Item NO.S-10