IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.59 of 2009 Faeem S/o Late Nanhe, R/o Kasba & P.S. Kunda, Distt. U.S. Nagar through Smt. Janu W/o Late Sri Nanhe …………Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand ………….Respondent Dated : April 20, 2009 Sri A.S. Gill, learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This criminal revision, preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000), (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) is directed against the judgment and order dated 01-04-2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.34/2009, Faeem Vs. State whereby the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 07-03-2009 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the revisionist-Faeem was an accused in case crime no.442 of 2008 u/s 363/366/376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) and one punishable u/s 3(1)(12) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar and he has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar on 03-03-2009. On the basis of juvenile, he moved a bail 2 application before the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar, which was rejected on 07-03-2009. Against the said order dated 07-03-2009, the revisionist preferred an appeal through his mother before the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, which too also rejected by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar on 01-04-2009. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has preferred the present revision. 4. Before further discussion it is pertinent to mention Section 12(1) of the Act, which is reproduced below:- “12. Bail of juvenile.-(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice”. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the finding recorded by the courts below is not correct and justified as both of the courts below have not disclosed in their judgments on the basis of which they came to the conclusion that the release of revisionist is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. I find force in the 3 argument of counsel for the revisionist. The Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar and the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar have rejected the bail application of the revisionist on the ground that if the revisionist/accused would be released on bail, there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal and which may expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and that his release would defeat the ends of justice. However, learned Sessions Judge and Juvenile Justice Board have not stated any reason whatsoever on the basis of which they come to above-said conclusion. Thus the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar dated 01-04-2009 and the order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 07-03-2009 are not as per the spirit of law and also the findings of the courts below are not based on any reasoning. Hence, order of both the courts below are liable to be set aside. 6. After perusal of the records and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, there is no evidence on the record which may prove that the release of the revisionist will bring into the association of any known criminal or expose moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 01-04-2009 of the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar and order dated 07- 03-2009 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar, are set aside. However, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the revisionist deserves bail at this stage. Let the revisionist Faeem be released on bail and be given in the custody of his mother Smt. Janu if she furnishes a 4 personal bond and two sureties with her personal undertaking that she will not allow the revisionist to go in the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, U.S. Nagar. (Dharam Veer, J.) 20-04-2009 Rajeev Dang