1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2010 Mobeen, S/O Mohd. Yameen, R/O Mohalla Thana Savik, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar through his father/ natural Guardian Shri Mohd. Yameen , S/O Abdul Karim R/O Mohalla Thana Sabik, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar ……………. Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand …………..opposite party Shri D.K.Sharma, Advocate present for the revisionist Shri M.A.Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard (2) This revision is directed against order dated 03.04.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2010, whereby said court has affirmed the order dated 09.03.2010, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case No. 321 of 2010. (3) Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was got lodged against unknown persons, which was registered as Crime No. 324 of 2008, relating to offence punishable under section 364 I.P.C. Later a dead body was found of the person who was said to have been abducted. 2 Four persons, including the present revisionist, suspected to have been involved in the crime were arrested by the police on 10.07.2008. The crime was converted into the offences punishable under section 394, 411 and 302 I.P.C. The Juvenile Justice Board rejected the bail application of the revisionist, after he was declared Juvenile. Learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the order of rejection of bail. (4) Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the courts below have erred in law in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist who was declared Juvenile. It is further pointed out that neither the revisionist is named in First Information Report, nor any incriminating evidence connecting him with the crime is said to have been recovered from the revisionist. It is pleaded that the motorcycle which was said to have been used in the crime, recovered allegedly at the instance of four persons including the revisionist. No reasons mentioned by the courts below as to how he is likely to come in to company of criminals if granted bail. (5) No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State even after opportunity being given to it. (6) In the above circumstances, this court is of the view that the courts below have erred in law in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (Juvenile). Accordingly, the revision deserves to be allowed. The same is allowed impugned order dated 03.04.2010, passed by Sessions Judge 3 Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2010, and order dated 09.03.2010, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, in Criminal Case No. 324 of 2008, are hereby set aside. The revisionist Mobeen Son of Mohd. Yameen, shall released on bail on executing personal bond by him father/guardian Mohd. Yameen and on furnishing two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.31.5.2010 N.P