(2) The prosecutrix is student of Class— 10th. She accompanied the applicant on 12.07.2011. They visited many places including Bilaspur and Nagpur and ultimately they went to Pune. In Pune, they were caught by the police and were brought to Raipur on 18.7.2011. Since 18.7.2011 the applicant is in custody. An application u/s 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 423 of 2011 APPLICANT Harshavardhan Sharma, S/o Sanjay Sharma, aged about 16 years and 8 months, R/o. Bajaj Colony, Sector-1, New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) Through: Natural Guardian Father Sanjay Sharma ¥> I, Versus Vi NON-APPLICANT x The State of Chhattisgarh Through: The District Magistrate, Raipur, District k, Raipur (C.G.) Criminal Revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2000 Appearance : Mr. M. Hasim Khan and Mr. S.C. Verma, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (18.08.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. (1) Applicant is a Juvenile. He has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 96/2011 registered u/ss 363, 366 and 376 IPC in police station New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 Criminal Revision No. 423 of 2011 \ and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2000’) was filed for his release on bail before the Juvenile Board, Raipur. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 21.7.2011. After the dismissal, an appeal was filed u/s 52 of the said Act before the Session Court, Raipur which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 102/2011. The said appeal has also been rejected vide order dated g- 27.7.2011, therefore, this Criminal Revision has been filed. *w (3) The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the Courts below have not properly adverted to the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2000 which mandates that if a juvenile is arrested or detained a or appears or is brought before a Board, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, he/she shall be released on bail with or without surety, but he/she shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him/her into association with any known criminal or expose him/her to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his/her release would defeat the ends of justice. His submission is that none of the above circumstances are existing in this case even then the bail application as also criminal appeal has been dismissed. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Yadav, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposes these arguments and supports the orders passed by the Session Court and the Board. (5) i have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused thgecords of the criminal revision. 3 Criminal Revision No. 423 of 2011 (6) Admittedly, the applicant is a juvenile and he is in custody since 18.7.2011. He is student of Ciass- 11th. The Session Court has not ‘ released him on bail on the ground that if he is released, there is every Iikeiihood that he may come in contact with known criminals and he may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. Legislature in Section 12 has used words likely “reasonable grounds for believing”. This clearly indicates that there should be sufficient grounds before recording a finding that such release is likely to expose. the juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger or it would defeat the ends of justice. Insufficient materials on record, therefore, would never constitute the grounds for believing of a Court that the released would lead to above consequences. In the present case, the Session Judge has referred to the report of Probation Officer. The report has been filed along with criminal revision. The relevant part of the report of the Probation Officer reads as under:- WWWwswamw WWW, GWWW§§% iwwha mswmdmmgmwarm WW? I“ This appears to be opinion of the Probation Officer. What is the basis of this opinion has not been mentioned by the Probation Officer. i am of the view that only on account of this opinion/report, it was not possible to form an opinion by the Session Court that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the release of the applicant is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or he would be exposed to moral, m 4 Criminal Revision No. 423 of 2011 physical or psychological danger or his reiease would defeat the ends of justice. (7) In Iight of the above facts and circumstances of the case, particuiarly in light of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2000 and that the juvenile is in custody since 18.7.2011, l am of the opinion that present is ht case in which this revision petition should be allowed and direction for reiease of the juveniie should be issued. (8) In the result, the revision is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Session Judge as also the Board are set-aside. it is directed that the appiicant/juveniie shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.10,000/— with one surety in like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Board for his appearance before the said Board on each date of hearing till the disposal of trial. It is directed that the bail bond shall be furnished by the father/guardian of the juvenile as the case may be. (9) Certified copy as per rules. l l l Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge l l Sdl- vattl