1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR f CRIMINAL REVISION No. W23 OF 2011 Adarsh Tiwari S/o Sharad Tiwari , aged about 17 years, R/o Jarhabhata, PETITIONER jln Custody at Observation Home NON-APPLICANTS State 0% Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate Bilaspur \ District— Bilaspur (C.G.) / ‘ CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 5S OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PRbTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2000 K. «I Mfg—ff Bilasgur i Bilaspur, Tahsil 8a Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Minor gwLj/{I through Guardiall Father PR. Na Presented hy $hri§§J ... w Sharad Tiwari. w¢(&ez/ME VERSUS ,5 o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BELASPUR S.B. :M HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA J. Criminal Revision No.465g 201 1 M CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 53 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE 1CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2000 Aggearance: Mr. Sunii'Sahu, caunsel for the applicant. Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for‘the State. ORAL ORDER . 1 27.98.2011) x Wiih the consent of 1earned counSel appearing for the parities the matter is heard imally. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 12m August, 2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 199/2011 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the applicant against the order dated 20m July, 2011 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, rejecting the bail application filed by the applicant under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 12008, has been dismissed. Petitioner AdarSh Tiwari Agglicaat Vs. Non—Aggiicants State of ‘ 3. The facts briefiy Stated are as under:- The applicant is a juvenils. He is aged about 1’7 years” He waS taken in to custody on 17.07.2011 for the alleged commissian of offences punisha'me under Sections 420,1’34, 467, 46$, 471 8?; 120—3 IPC and Sections 4(a) 85 10 of Chhattisgarh Public Exammation (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2008. When he was produced before the concerned board, his application tiled for releasing him on bail was dismissed on 20.07.2011 and thereafter the appeal tiled against the said order was also dismissed on 12th August, 2011 by the concerned Sessions Court. Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that since the applicant is a juvenile, therefore, in View of the provisions of Section 12(i) of the Juvenile Justice {Care and Protection of Children) Act, £2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2000”), he entitled to be released on bail but the Sessions Judge as well as the Juvenile Justice Board fell into error by rejecting his bail applications by the impugned orders. 01 .Mr‘ Satish Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate, opposed these arguments and supported the orders passed by the Sessions Court and the Juvenile Board. . The applicant is being prosecuted as a juvenile. He was aged 17 years 10 months and 25 days on the date of the incident. This is evident from the copy of the mark sheet filed as Annexure~A—3. Though, the learned Sessions Judge has held in the impugned order that it would not be in the interest of applicant/juvenile to give him to the custody of his parents, but the grounds contained in Section 12(1 of the Act 2000 have not been ) @ considered by the Sassions Judga Section 126) pmviées that when a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, he/she shall, nomvithstandirig any’ming 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 it has been provided that the juvenile shall not be released if there appears reasonable g‘ounds for believing that the reieaset’ is likely to bring him/her into association with any known criminal or expose him/her to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his/her release would defeat the ends ofjustice. . Without properly appreciating the above aspects provided in Section 12(i) of the Act, 2000, it appears that the Sessions Judge has passed an order of rejection of the appeal filed by the juvenile praying for his release on bail. \ . Today also, the Government Advocate is not in a position to \ show as to how the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with the known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psycholog’cal danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Further, in identical case of Ku. Akansha Singh, in which identical allegations have been levelled and was a juvenile, order has been passed on 10.8.2011 in Cr. Rev. No.422/ 1 1, by which revision has been allowed, directing release on bail. For the foregoing reasons, the revision is allowed. it is directed that the applicant/juvenile, who is arrested in connection with the above oh‘ences vide Crime No. 177/201] of Police Station- @ Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, shall be released on bail on furnishing a perSOnal bond of Rs. 10,000/ — with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur for his appearance before the said Board on each date of hearing till the disposal of the trial. 10. The bail bonds shall be furnished by the father/guardian of the juvenile as the case may be. 1 1. Certined copy as per rules. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen