IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 46 of 2010 Avtar Singh & Tinku S/O Shyam Singh R/O Village Puroli, P.S Devband District Saharanpur ……………. Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand ………….. Opposite Party Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the respondent State. This revision, filed Under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, is directed against order dated 2-3-2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2010, Avtar Singh @ Tinku vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby said Court has dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the order dated 13-01-2010, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 (3) Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist Avtar Singh @ Tinku (a juvenile) is an accused in crime No. 227 of 2009, relating to offences punishable under section 302, 307, 120-B/34, 212 of I.P.C., police station Ranipur, District Haridwar. The case of the revisionist is that he was juvenile at the time commission of crime. An application for bail was moved on his behalf before the Juvenile Justice Board, which was rejected vide order dated 13-01-2010, passed by the Board. Aggrieved by said, the revisionist preferred criminal appeal No. 03 of 2010, before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, and said appeal was also dismissed. Hence this revision. (4) Learned Counsel for the revisionist drew attention of this Court to Session 12 for the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, and argued that the refusal of bail to the juvenile should be an exception. It is contended that applicant is not named in the FIR. His arrest is said to have been made after one month of the incident along with co-accused Brijpal@ Chota. It is contended that the co-accused Brijpal @ Chota, who is also Juvenile, has already been directed to be released on bail by another bench of this Court vide its order dated 10-2-2010, passed in criminal Revision No. 23 of 2010 It is submitted that applicant’s case is not different in substance to that of Brijpal @ Chota. Lastly it is stated that neither the release of the applicant is likely to bring him to association of known criminals nor any of the conditions which are fulfilled for refusing bail. 3 (5) In the above circumstances, having considered submissions for learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 2-3-2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, and the order dated 13-1-2010, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, are set aside, and it is directed that the revisionist Avtar Singh @ Tinku be released on bail and shall given in the custody of his father and natural guardian Shyam Singh. On his (father) executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties of the amount as directed by the Board, with further undertaking by them that the revisionist/ applicant shall not be allowed to go in association of criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger. The revision stands disposed of, accordingly. (Bail Application No. 193 of 2010 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.15.3.2010 Nahid