IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL INTERIM RELIEF APPLICATION NO.340 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION No.70 of 2010 Pintu (minor) …………Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand ………….Respondent Dated : July 07, 2010 Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.S. Dangi, Advocate for the revisionist Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist, is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.1.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.120 of 2009, “Pintu V. State”, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 19.12.2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the revisionist-Pintu (juvenile) was an accused in F.I.R. No.217 of 2009 under Sections 302/201/394/411 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) at P.S. Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar and has been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Sing Nagar. On the ground of juvenile, Smt. Lalita, being the guardian of the revisionist, moved an application for bail of revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board which was rejected vide order dated 19.12.2009. Against that order, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar, who too vide judgment and order dated 14.1.2010 dismissed the same and upheld the order dated 19.12.2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Before further discussion it is pertinent to mention Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000) (hereinafter to be referred as 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 Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of 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, Udham Singh Nagar and the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar have rejected the bail application of the revisionist on the ground that if the revisionist/accused would be released on bail, there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into 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, learned Sessions Judge and Juvenile Justice Board have not stated any reason whatsoever on the basis of which they come to above-said conclusion. Thus the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar dated 14.1.2010 and the order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 19.12.2009 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 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 14.1.2010 of the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar and order dated 19.12.2009 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar, are 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 Pintu (juvenile) be released on bail and be given in the custody of his guardian Smt. Lalita w/o Ompal, if she furnishes a personal bond and two sureties with her personal undertaking that she will not allow the revisionist to go in the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, U.S. Nagar. (Interim Relief Application No.340 of 2010 stands disposed of). (Dharam Veer, J.) 07.07.2010 RG