@ $irag§a Sencf’i N THE HIGH COURT OF mICATURE AT BILASPUR (ca) CRIMINAL REVISION No.2ég72005 PPLICANT: Faustino Naik ( Limo), S/o Kastantino Naik, Aged about 17 years, Rio Village Padampur, District— Raigarha, Orrisa Through his brother Sukanto Lima S/o Kastantino Naik, Aged about 26 years, l R/o Village Padampur, District— Raigarha, OITisa VERSUS .mul ‘ NON-APPLICANT: State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S Railway Police, Raipur Dismct- Raipur (C G) W REVISION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 53 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT 1986. @ 1 A @ W Wm; “(gxwawiagoo maW (gafgaa) 311w em Was EMTma 251m? mwm‘i‘ww $3§Hsn§21 mavm 311321 01/07/2005 Shri O.P.Sahu, ' counsel for tr e applicant. Shri D.K.Gwalre, P.L. for the State. Heard. This revision under Section§3 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2000, has been preferredby Juvenile Applicant nanely, Faustino Naik (Limo) who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.37f2005 Iegistered ih Police Station Railway Police, 'Raipur for the offerce punishable under Section 2O (B) of-the NDPS Act. His application for grant of bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Juvenile Justice Board against which the Section 52 of the Act and which was also :he learned Sessions Judge, Raipur on the child is released on bail he may again associate in the trade of narcot which shall adversely affect the juvenile delinquent morally, physically and p chologically which is against the interest of the‘ juvenile delinquent The factsvof the case is that ms. of cannabis were recovered from the possession of the present applicant y the police on 05/03/2005 and on the basis of the recovery, the aforesaid crime was registered against him. Charge sheet has been tiled and the applicant isf cing trial under Section 20 (B) of the NDPS Act. Under the Juvenile Justice Act, he appiication for grant of bail was tiled by the applicant which was rejected a d presently he is detained in the remand home meant for juveniles. The ap preferred before learned Sessions Judge, Ralpur which was also rejected vide i pugned order dated 24/0512005. Learned counsel for the appl' ant submits that the Courts below ought to have released the applicant on bail as per Section 12 of the Act as he is in — custody since last four months and e was no material on record to show that after release the applicant may com in association with the persons involved in Justge Act was rejected by the applicant preferred an appeal under rejected by the impugned order by ground that in case the delinqu SP/FS/2005 - 20,000 J 5 5’ SP/FS/2oo5 - 20,000 tat e i p l r @ £1200 mam (W) r (5 ‘ \