IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No.2 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Bablu Adhikari S/o Krishna Gopal Adhikari, R/o E-29, Transit Camp, Rudrapur, P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar ……….Applicant/Informant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ……….Opposite Parties Dated: May 12, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/opposite party no.1. None is present for the respondent no.2. By way of this application, the applicant/informant has sought to cancel the bail granted to respondent no.2- Sukumar vide this Court’s judgment and order dated 9.2.2010 in Criminal Revision No.4 of 2010 under the Juvenile Justice [Care & Protection of Children] Act, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2- Sukumar was declared juvenile by the order of Juvenile Justice Board, U.S. Nagar on 29.9.2009. On being declared juvenile, he moved an application for bail before the said Juvenile Justice Board through his father, which was rejected on 8.10.2009 and against that order, an appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar which too was dismissed on 17.12.2009. Assailing both the orders, the revisionist/respondent no.2 went in revision before this Court. On 9.2.2010, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, the Court found that the judgments and orders passed by the courts below were not as per the spirit of law inasmuch as no specific and categoric finding was recorded in the judgments as to what were the reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the accused/respondent no.2 would defeat the ends of justice. Accordingly, in view of Section 12(1) of the aforesaid Act, this Court allowed the revision, set aside the judgments and orders dated 17.12.2009 and 8.10.2009 passed by Sessions Judge & Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar respectively and the revisionist/respondent no.2-Sukumar was directed to be released on bail and was further directed to be given in the custody of his father being a natural guardian on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with his personal undertaking that he would not allow his son- Sukumar to go into the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychology danger. It is pertinent to mention here that in the garb of the present bail cancellation application, the applicant/ complainant in fact seeks to review the judgment and order dated 9.2.2010 passed in the criminal revision, which was decided on merits, and as per the settled law, the same is not permissible. Therefore, it is stated that the present bail cancellation application moved on behalf of the respondent no.2 against the judgment and order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision, is not maintainable. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the contents of the present bail cancellation application and that of the revision; on a careful perusal of the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 9.2.2010, I do not find any ground to cancel the bail granted to the respondent no.2. Bail cancellation application is rejected accordingly. 12.05.2010 Rajeev Dang (Dharam Veer, J.)