K.N.SINHA,J. - (1.) HEAD learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned order.
(2.) ACCUSED Sanjay Kumar was challaned by Raniya Police Station for the offence under Sections 392 and 411 IPC. The revisionist moved an application before the Additional CJM (Juvenile Judge) for declaring him to be a juvenile. The said application was rejected on 20th of July, 2002. The revisionist filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge against the order of the Additional CJM. The learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal declaring the revisionist to be a juvenile but refused to grant bail to him. Against the said order the present revision has been filed. I have perused the impugned judgment. The provision contained in Section 12 of Act No. 56 of 2000, lays down that if a juvenile accused is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall be released on bail but he shall not be so released if there appears 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 this release would defeat the ends of justice. Thus every juvenile, for whatsoever offence he is charged with, shall be released on bail except under the above circumstances. The learned Sessions Judge has given first ground that accused may repeat the offence, but it is no ground for refusing the bail. The learned Sessions Judge has further observed that on release there can be danger to his life. No such evidence was before him to infer that release of accused would put his life in danger.
(3.) OF course the bail application of the juvenile can be refused, if the above grounds or any one of the grounds exists. The existence of such ground should not mean the guess work of the Court but it should be substantiated by some evidence on the record. Considering this, I find that the revisionist, being juvenile, is entitled to bail.;