Vinod Prasad - (1.) -Heard Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.
(2.) THE revisionist, Shailendra Kumar Yadav who is admittedly juvenile has filed this revision seeking his release in Case Crime No. 452 of 2005, under Sections 364, 368, 406 and 328, I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, district Mainpuri. His bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board was rejected by it vide order dated 13.7.2006 by observing that in the society his reputation is bad and if he will be released the purpose of justice will be defeated. THE order dated 13.7.2006 was challenged in Appeal No. 151 of 2006 before Sessions Judge, Agra by the revisionist accused. THE said appeal also was dismissed vide order dated 26.8.2006. THE lower court has observed that it is not an impossible possibility that if released on bail the applicant will indulge into crime. I have gone through the impugned order dated 13.7.2006 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Agra as well as lower appellate court. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that both the impugned orders are absolutely wrong and based on fanciful interpretation of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and illegally the bail prayer of the revisionist has been rejected. He submitted that it has come in the judgment of the lower appellate court that the applicant did not have any criminal history. He further contended that the police station concerned as well as the probation officer did not report any criminal history or bad antecedents of the revisionist consequently, he submitted that in the absence of the raw material to come to a conclusion that the applicant will indulge into crime, the said finding was recorded by the lower appellate court which is absolutely conjectural based on no evidence and therefore, cannot be sustained.
(3.) LEARNED A.G.A. also fail to point out as to on what material the lower appellate court as well as Juvenile Justice Board was of the opinion that release of the applicant will hamper the purpose of justice. I have considered the submission raised by both the sides. The Juvenile Justice Act has been enacted for the benefit of juvenile offenders. This does not mean that they should be allowed to remain in custody without any valid reason. For a healthy development of personality the healthy atmosphere that to in respect of juvenile offenders is an indispensable necessity. Unmindful rejection of bail in case of juvenile may result into a hazardous proposition for the juvenile for whose benefit the act has been enacted. A sensitive mind has to be dealt with sensitivity. An undue harsh opinion may be counter productive and can defeat the very object of the enactment. By passing both the impugned orders both the courts below have committed miscarriage of justice. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail.;