IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 24 OF 2010 With Bail Application No. 81 of 2010 Sandeep @ Chintu (Juvenile) S/o Omprakash …………Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand ………….Respondent February 11, 2010 Sri Siddhartha Sah, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for the revisionist Sri S.S. Adhikari, AGA 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 21.1.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 70/2009, Sandeep @ Chintu v. State, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the revisionist Sandeep @ Chintu was an accused in Case Crime No. 411 of 2008 u/s 452, 324, 302 IPC, P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar and he has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar on 18.7.2009. On the basis of juvenile, he moved a bail application through his father before the Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar which was rejected on 18.11.2009. Against the said order dated 18.11.2009, the revisionist preferred an appeal through his father before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, which was also rejected by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide the impugned judgment and order dated 21.1.2010. 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 argument of counsel for the revisionist. The Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar and the Sessions Judge, Haridwar have rejected the bail application of the revisionist on the ground that if the revisionist/accused would be released on bail, there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him in 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, neither the Sessions Judge nor the Juvenile Justice Board stated any reason whatsoever on the basis of which they come to the aforesaid conclusion. Thus the judgment and orders passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar as well as that of the Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar 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 him 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 21.1.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar and the order dated 18.11.2009 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar are hereby 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 Sandeep @ Chintu be released on bail and he shall be given in the custody of his father and natural guardian Sri Omprakash if he furnishes a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar as well as his personal undertaking that he will not allow the revisionist to go into the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.. (Dharam Veer, J.) 11.2.2010 PRABODH