Kumar Kalyani, D/o Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, aged sbout 14 years, R/o Village Belsari P.S. Takhafpur, Djstrict Bitespur (Chhattisgarh) Minor through natural Quardian brother Kaifash Yadav State of Chhattisaarh, through station house officer, Poiice Station, Takhatpur, District iilaspur (C.G.) JUVENILE JUS j i! Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Counsel for the applicant. '. UKS Chandei, Panei Lawyerforthe (15.12.2011) '•i- This revision is directed against the order 14.10.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.288/2011 by the Fourth Addltional Session Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned order, the appeal r'iled by ihe applicant (juvenile) against the order dated 21.09.2011 passed in Criminal Case No.125/2011 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur (in short 'the Board' or 'the Juvenile Board') has been dismissed bytheAppellate Court. .^si%j. ^:-^/' 2 ^: The appiicant is a juvenite. She is aged about 1 4 years. She has been taken into custody on 09.05.2011. Initialiy, an offence under Section 307/34 !PC was registered against the applicant and her parents for attempting life of one Sukwara Bai. Later on, Sukvi/ara Bai died during the course of treatment, therefore, the offenee was converted under Section 302/34 iPC. The parents of the applicant are also in jail. An application for release of the applicant was filed before the Juvenile Board under Section 12 ofthe Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Chiidren) Act, 2000 (hereinaffer referred to as 'the Act'). The said appiication was dismissed on 21.09.2011 and thereafter, the Criminal Appeal v/as filed, which was aiso dismissed. The Juvenile Board as also the Appellate Court have taken the view that the parents of the applicant (juvenile) are in jail, therefore, if the appiicant is released on baii, there would not be proper guardianship and there is every likelihood that she would come into association with any known criminal and her reiease would defeat the ends ofjustice . Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel forthe applicant, argued that the appiication for bail, the appeal and the revision have been filed at the instance of the elder brother of the applicant (juvenile) namely Ksilash Yadav, aged about 22 years, w/ho is looking after the family after She incident. Therefore, there is no likelihood that the release of appEicant would bring her into association with any known criminal. Moreover, it is a case, in which, on a family dispute, the incident took place and unfortunately, the injury received by the deceased proved fatal. On the other hana', Mr. UKS Chandei, learned Pane! Lawyer for the State opposed these arguments and supported the orders passed by the Board as also the Appellate Court. A perusai of the orders passed by the Board and the Appellate Court wou!d show that their above apprehension is ''^^•^" .y based on mere guesswork, whereas, Section 12 provides that there must appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenite into association with any known criminat or expose him/her to moral, physical or psychoiogical danger or that his/her release would defeat the ends ofjustice. 1 am of the view that the Appeliate Court and the Juvenile Board has not properly adverted to the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and the above orders have been passed. For the foregoing reasons, the rev'Ision fiied by the applicant (juvenite) is allowed and the order passed by the Appeilate Court is set aside and it is directed that the applicant (juveniie) shall be released on baii on furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Board for her appearance before the said Board on each date of hearing till the disposa! of the triai. The bond shall be furnished by the father/guardian of the juvenile, as the case may be. Certified copy as per rules. -. „ -—— CAL~~~ Sunil Kumar Sinba Judge ^ ?lt^ 3&, ^^s shyna