IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.52 of 2007 Juvenile Bahadur S/o Chota … Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand … Respondent Dated: December 10, 2008 Sri Rajendra Singh, Adv. for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent HON. 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 28.3.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Hardwar in Crl. Appeal No.18 of 2007, Bahadur Vs. State, as well as against the order dated 7.2.2007 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Hardwar. 2. Heard Sri Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief the case of the prosecution is that the revisionist-Bahadur is in jail in connection with the case crime No.67 of 2006 u/s 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) at P.S. Bhagwanpur, Distt. Hardwar. The revisionist was declared Juvenile by the order of Juvenile Justice Board, Hardwar dated 20.1.2007. Thereafter, the revisionist moved an application before the Juvenile Justice Board with a prayer that he may be given in the Supurdgi of his father. The said application was rejected by Juvenile Justice Board, Hardwar vide order dated 7.2.2007. Against the said order, the revisionist preferred an appeal before Sessions Judge, Hardwar, which too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 28.3.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Hardwar. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. The application of bail of the revisionist was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hardwar as well as by learned Sessions Judge, Hardwar on the ground that if he would be released on bail, then he would again go in association with criminals and there are chances that he would again be involved in the criminal activities and by doing so, it would adversely affect on his moral, physical and psychological character. 4. Before further discussion, Section 12 of the aforesaid Act is relevant to mention here which is reproduced as under: - 12 (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. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub- section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that as per Section 12(1) of the Act as quoted above, the revisionist-Bahadur is entitled for bail. I find force in the argument of counsel for the revisionist. In Section 12(1) of the aforesaid Act quoted above, it is specifically mentioned that if the 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 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. The State has filed its counter affidavit of S.O. Omveer Singh Rawat and in the said affidavit, it has not been specifically stated that what are those circumstances which may bring the revisionist into the association of any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Even otherwise, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar have not given any specific reason for believing that after the release, the revisionist will go in the association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 28.3.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Hardwar as well as order dated 7.2.2007 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Hardwar, are accordingly set aside. Needless to say that the revisionist has already been released on bail vide order dated 13.4.2007 passed by this Court. (Dharam Veer, J.) December 10, 2008 Rajeev Dang