1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2011 with Bail Application no. 1303 of 2011 Kailash Lal, S/o Loodar Lal R/o Village-Pokhari, Patti-Upli Ramoli Tehsil Pratapnagar, District Tehri Garhwal …..…Revisionist (in jail) Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through District Magistrate Tehri Garhwal ……….Respondent Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A., present for the State. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.10.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in criminal appeal no. 47 of 2011, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the order dated 14.10.2011, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Tehri Garhwal, refusing the bail to the revisionist (a juvenile). 2 3. Admittedly, the revisionist Kailash Lal is declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, Tehri Garhwal. He is said to be 15 years of age. His date of birth is 03.01.1996. The allegation against him is that he attempted to commit rape on a minor girl (aged five years). 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist drew attention of this Court to provision contained in section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and submitted that authorities below have erred in law in refusing bail to the juvenile aged 15 years. Section 12 provides that when juvenile is arrested or detained, he shall be released on bail except when there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association of any known criminal or exposed him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that release could defeat the ends of justice. 5. In the present case the girl on whom rape is attempted is said to be aged five years. The allegations are supported by medical evidence on record. Apart from this, the applicant is said to 3 have a criminal history of one case. The applicant is presently lodged in children's home. 6. In the circumstances, considering the age of the minor victim, this Court is of the view that it would defeat the ends of justice if the bail is granted to the revisionist. As such, this court does not find any illegality in the orders passed by the authorities below. 7. Therefore, the revision is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J. ) Parul 03.11.2011