R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.4.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the judgment of the Principal Magistrate dated 1.4.2011 and has denied the benefit of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 to him.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that provisions of Section 12 of the Act is mandatory in nature and as it uses the word shall'. Therefore, the petitioner, being a juvenile, deserves to be enlarged on bail.
(3.) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously contended that the petitioner is accused of having committed double murder and is facing a trial for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. In case, the petitioner were to be let out on bail, it would "defeat the ends of justice". According to the learned Public Prosecutor since Section 12 of the Act carves out three circumstances in which the bail can be denied, therefore, the word "shall" should be interpreted as "may". Hence, Section 12 of the Act is not mandatory in nature, but is merely directory in nature.;