HEGH C(EURT 6F CHHATTI3§ARH AT EILA$?UR criminai Revision N0.48‘i of 23?: ?etitiener Akash Nirmaikar @ Tony, aged (m custody) abcut 18 years, Sin Manharan Nirmakar, Rio Dubey Marg, Near ShEvghat, OM. Sarkanda, Poiice Statian Sarkanda, Biiaspw’ (CG) Ver3us Respendent State 0f Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, Bilaepur. (Criminai Revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justéoe (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000) MLRavindia Agrawai, counsei for the petitioner“ Mr.Sushii Subey, Government Advocate for the respondentfState. $3: Hon‘bie Mr. ‘i'P. Shanna, J.) GRDER (21 -1 1-201 1) 'i. Ey this revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Chiidren) Act, 2000 (for snori ”the Act, 2000’) the petitioner has chaiienged the iegeiity and propriety of the order detect 2912011 passed by the Sessiens Judge, Biiaspur, in Criminei Appeai No.t83i11, affirming the order dated 29.6.2011 passed by the Juveniie Justiee Beard, Biiaspur,’ in Criminal Case No.6h/2 it, whereby the appiication ttied on behaif of the petitioner for bait under Section i2 of the Act, 2000 hae been dismissed. \ 2. The present petitioner is facing triei of the offence punishabie under Sections t4‘f, 148 end 302 of the t.P.C. and 3 (2X5) of the Soheduied Caste and scheduied Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act. \i . Learned counsei for the petitioner vehemently submits that provisions of Section t2 of the Act, 2000 are different from the provisions of Sections 43?, 438 and 4‘39 of the Cr.P.C. in order to deny the baii of iuveniie offender the Board and Court are required to opine that his reiease wouid defeat the ends of iustice. Learned counsei further i i i submits that a juveniie who is arrested and detained in any criminal i l l ‘XK case, he shaii be reieased on baii under the provisicns of Section 12 of the Act, 29%, unless there appears reasonabie grcunds for beiieving that the feiea'se is iikeiy. to bring him into asseciation wiih any known criminai or expcse him to morai, physical er psychniogicai danger or that his release wouid defeat the ends of justice and no ground is avaiiabie for denia! for his reiease. Learned counsei caniended that in the present case the prosecution has not coiiected any materiai to show that if the cetiticner is reieased on ai, it wouio’ defeat the ends of justice. The present petitioner is in custody sine 12.1.2011 and stiil triai before the Juveniie Justice Board wiil take time. On the other hand. teamed Government Advocate opposes the revision and submits that this is not a casual case of criminai incident but the petitioner aiong with other persons have initially caused injury to the deceased and after sometime again they entered into the house of the deceased and caused fatal injuries over vital part. This shows his involvement with known criminals. On the basis of aforesaid material, both the Courts beiow have denied the bait. Considering the case of repeated assault afteg considerabie time, at this stage it wouid be difiicuit that if the pe itioner shaii be released he wcuid not he in association with known criminais. White dismissing the appeai and appiioation. both the Courts 'oeiow have not committed any iiiegaiity warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Consequentiy, the revision is iiable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. However, considering the age of the petitioner, the Juvenile Justice Board shail decide the case as eariy as possibie preterabiy within a period of tour months from the date of ttiing a copy of this order on behaif of the petitioner. 4:. Sdl— T.P. Sharma Judge ' I“