CRilVIiNAL REVISION N0. 534/2011 '~<. Dipak Maurya, Age- 16 years, S/o Late Bhaiya ia! Resi./o Shanichari Bazar, Near Bilasa Chauk, P.S. City Kotwali Bilaspur, C.G. Through his iegal guardian Sister Sonam, W/o Manoj Kumar, Age- 24 years, R/o. Naya talab, Ramtgrsen city, Kahamtarai, Road, Bilaspur (C.G.5. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: P.S. City Kotwali, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G. CR1MENAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 53 OF THE JUVENILi JUSTICE (CARE AND PRQTECTION OF CHILDRE ACT. 2( ^? Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate forthe applicant. '. An/ind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State. This revision is directed against the order dated 27 August, 2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 208/2011 by 5th Additiona! Session Judge, Bilaspur. The applicant is a juvenile. He has been arrested in crime 2^4/2011, registered under Section 302/34 IPC in Police.Station- City Kotwali, Bilaspur. There are two other accused persons in this matter nameiy- Sundari Bai (Mother of the applicant) and Suraj Morya (Brother of the applicant). Crimlnal Reyision No. 534/201_1 Earlier, the appiicant filed an application before the Juvenile Board. The board dismissed the said appiication vide order dated 30.08.2011. Thereafter, the appiicant filed an appea! before the Session Court, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appiicant, submits that the applicant is a juvenile, therefore, the provisions of Section 12(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (herein after refer as Act 2000) shali apply in his case. He also submits that the learned Session Judge has not adverted the provisions of the said Section and it appears that the bai! appiication has been rejected on merits of the case. On the other, learned Panei Lawyer for the State, opposed these irguments and supported the order passed by the Appellate Court. ! have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe revision petition. .fV The Appeilate Court has observed that the mother and brother of are also in jail in the same crime, therefore, it would not be appropriate to release the juvenile on ball. It is stated at Bar that mother and brother of the applicant have alr-feady been released on bail vide order dated 12.09.2011 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2698/2011. The copy ofthe order has also been furnished. In view of the above and further in view of the provision of Section 12 of the Act 2000, and in absence of any material to shovv that the release of the applicant (juvenile) is likeiy 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, 1 am of the opinion that present is a fit case in which the ap|)!icant (juvenile) should be released on bail. Accordingly, the reyision is allowed. It is directed that the applicantfjuvenile), shall be released on bail on fiirnlshing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the !U <«2.3>l »i«rfga Be>is ^-.•^'/ ^<" I- Rahul Et^ Criminal Revision No. 534/2Q1_1 concerned Board for his appearance before the said Board on each date of hearing till the disposal of the trial. The bail bond shall be furnished by the guardian of the juvenile Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge -sf 3U.