IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2011 Indrajeet Singh ……… Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand ……… Respondent. Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Nandan Arya, Assistant Government Advocate (Govt. of Uttarakhand) for the respondent. Date of Order: 28.03.2011 BARIN GHOSH, CHIEF JUSTICE The bail sought by juvenile has been rejected by the Board, as also by the Sessions Judge. Hence, the present revision petition. 2. One of the grounds for refusing to grant such bail is that the release would defeat the ends of justice. The ground taken by the Board and the Sessions Judge is that the release would defeat the ends of justice, in as much as the juvenile is involved in 9 cases of theft already. The Act provides that when such bail is rejected, juvenile will be kept in an observation home. The object and purpose of the Act is to ensure that the juvenile is put to a correct path, so that he can, in future, become a responsible citizen. Non-grant of bail to the juvenile and keeping him in an observation home will prevent registration of any further case against him in the near future. There will be no further allegation that the juvenile is involved in further crimes. 3. Creating a contrary situation by grant of bail would defeat ends of justice and, accordingly, there is no scope of interference. The revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.03.2011 Amit