IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL URGENCY APPLICATION NO.545 OF 2010 BAIL APPLICATION NO.54 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION No.13 of 2010 1. Lalit Kumar (Minor) S/o Indrapal, through his father and natural guardian Indrapal 2. Rakesh (Minor) S/o Shanker Singh, through his mother and natural guardian Smt. Shimla …………Revisionists Versus State of Uttarakhand ………….Respondent Dated : February 10, 2010 Sri Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the revisionists 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 8.1.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeals No.74/2009 and No.75/2009, Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Lalit Vs. State of Uttarakhand, respectively, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 21.11.2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar. 2. Urgency Application No.545/2010 is allowed. 3. Counter affidavit filed by the State be taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 5. In brief, the facts of the case are that the revisionists, namely, Lalit Kumar and Rakesh were accused in case crime no.306 of 2009 under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) at P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar. The date of birth of revisionist Lalit Kumar is 4.3.1992 and the age of revisionist Rakesh was 10 years as per Ration card dated 7.7.2004. The aforesaid crime was committed on 17.09.2009 and on the date of commission of crime, both the revisionists were less than 18 years. The revisionists moved the application for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board which was rejected vide order dated 21.11.2009. Against that order, the revisionists preferred appeals before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, who too vide judgment and order dated 08.01.2010 dismissed the same and upheld the order dated 21.11.2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionists have come up in revision before this Court. 6. 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”. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionists 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 revisionists is likely to bring them into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that their release would defeat the ends of justice. I find force in the argument of counsel for the revisionists. The Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar and the Sessions Judge, Haridwar have rejected the bail application of the revisionists on the ground that if the revisionists/accused would be released on bail, there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring them into association with any known criminal and which may expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger and that their 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, Haridwar dated 08.01.2010 and the order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 21.11.2009 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. 8. 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 revisionists will bring into the association of any known criminal or expose moral, physical or psychological danger or that their release would defeat the ends of justice. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 08.01.2010 of the Sessions Judge, Haridwar and order dated 21.11.2009 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar, are set aside. However, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the revisionists deserve bail at this stage. Let the revisionists- Lalit Kumar and Rakesh be released on bail and be given in the custody of their father and mother respectively, if each of them furnish personal bonds and two sureties each with their personal undertaking that they will not allow the revisionists to go in the association with any known criminal or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger, to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar. (Bail Application No.54 of 2010 stands disposed of accordingly). (Dharam Veer, J.) 10.02.2010 RG