HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Prince, 17 years, S/o Ashok Sahani, Thro' Next Friend IMother Smt. Rekha Sahani, Parthlv! Nagar, P.S. Aamanaka; Raipur(C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, thro' PS Teiibandha, Raipur ~\. CRIMiNAL REVISION SECTION 53 OF THi fcr^ tf i^l'^iai^^- W^^? Mr. Raja Sharma, Counsel for the applicant. Mr. UKS Chandel, Panei Lawyer for the Stats The appiicant ss a juvenile. He has filed this revision against the order dated 20.10.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.153/2011 by the Third Additional Session Judge, Raipur. The applicant v/as taken into custody on 05.09.2011. His memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and a mobile set was selzed at his instance. Crime No.305/2011 under Sections 379 & 380 of IPC and Section 41(1) (4) of Cr.P.C. was registered against the applicant. He was srrested and produced before the concerned Juvenile Board where an applicatlon ynder Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Cliildren) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred ^' to as "the Act") was fiied. The said applicatlon was dismissed by fhe concerned Board on 15.09.2011. Against the said order, Criminal Appeal No.153/2011 was filed, which was also Mr. Raja Sharma, iearned counset forthe appiicant argued that the bail application of the juvenile has been dismissed on the ground that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal and that the release would defeat the ends of justice, but there was no materiai before the Board or the Session Court to take such view. He submitted that mere }uessv</ork of the Court will not make the foundation to deny the bail ofjuvenile in light ofthe mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the Act. He prayed for allowing the revision petition by releasing the appficant (juvenile) on regular bail, who is said to be in custody since 05.09.201 1. On the other hand, Mr. UKS Chandel, iearned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed these arguments and supported the orders passed by the Board as also the Session Court. Section 12 of the Act, 2000 provides for releasing the juveniles on bail. !t has been provided that a juvenile shal! not be reieased if there appears to be reasonable grounds for believing that the reiease is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physica! or psychological danger or that his release wouid defeat the ends ofjustice. Perusal of the impugned orders of the Board as also the Session Court shows that the bail of the juvenile has been refused on account of apprehension that he may come in association with known criminals, but there is no reasonable ground for believing so as is required under Secti&n 1 2 of the Act. There is no dispute that the applicant Is a juvenile and he is in custody since 05.09.201 1. ^iSSa. S '~"'ac'5li S '"9 / In the above facts and circumstanoes, the reyision fiied by the juvenile is a!!o'<ved and the order passed by the Appeilate Court is set aside and it is directed that the appiicant (juvenile) shali be reteased on bai! on furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.10,0007- with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Board for his appearance before the said Board on each date of hearing tiil the disposal of the trial. The bond shail be furnished by the father/guardian of the juvenile, as the case may De. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge <^^ shi'na