- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the revisionist.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed under Section38 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as the Act ). There is no dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the Act. The revisionist was involved in a mur der case. He applied for bail before the learned Magistrate who rejected the bail proper vide order dated 27-6-2000 observ ing that at the pointing out of the applicant knife alleged to have been used in commis sion of the crime was recovered. In these circumstances he is likely to affect the Court of justice and it is also likely that he m ay temper with the prosecution evidence in collusion with some criminals. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the ap peal vide order dated 15- 7-2000. These orders of both the Courts below have been challenged in this revision. The main submission of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that there was no material before the learned Magistrate to make observation as aforesaid and such observation cannot be made on conjecture and surmises. The learned Sessions Judge unfortunately has not examined the matter on the basis of the evidence on record. Learned AGA has submitted that the revisionist is the main assailant. May it be so. Section 18 (1) of the Act provides that a juvenile has to be released on bail and there are only two grounds on which the bail may be refused to the juvenile one is that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring juvenile into as sociation with any known criminal and other grounds is that the release is likely to expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the end of justice. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material in support of any of these two conditions which may persuade the Court not to release the juvenile on bail. The finding has to be given by the learned Magistrate or by the appellate Court on the basis of material adduced before it and on surmises and conjectures. Having not considered these aspects of the matter in the orders of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, the orders passed by both the Courts below cannot be sustained.
(3.) THE revision is therefore, allowed. THE impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are set aside and the revisionist involved in case crime No. 93 of 2000 under Sections 307 and 302ipc. P. S. Muradnagar, district Ghaziabad is directed to be released on bail on furnish ing a personal bond by his guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. Revision allowed. .;