- (1.) A. K. Roopanwal, J. This revision is directed against the orders dated 11. 7. 2007 and 4. 10. 2007 passed by the authorities below. Vide order dated 11. 7. 2007 the bail to the revisionist was refused by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Jus tice Board, Mau in case No. 199/06, under ""section 302, I. P. C. and 25 Arms Act. When the appeal was preferred against the rejec tion order dated 11. 7. 2007, that appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Mau vide order dated 4. 10. 2007. Hence, the present revision.
(2.) IT appears from the record that the revisionist was facing trial in the aforesaid case for the murder of one Sanjay. The alle gation against him was that when Sanjay came in between the revisionist and the girl to whom he wanted much, the revisionist eliminated Sanjay. The Juvenile Justice Board rejected the application on the ground that the offence with which the re visionist has been charged is of a serious ""nature and if he is released on bail, the very purpose of the justice would frustrate. He also opined that the release may fall the revisionist in the same atmosphere which he was having previous to his coming to the jail and there is likelihood that he would be exposed to physical and psycho logical danger. The view expressed by the Juvenile Justice Board was endorsed by the Sessions Judge just by saying that the grounds for refusal are sound. Heard Mr.Janardan Yadav,learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A. G. A. and perused the record. Mr. Yadav contended that admit tedly the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. He, no doubt, is facing trial in a heinous offence like murder but the seriousness of the offence cannot be a ground for the refusal of bail as such contingency has not been incorporated in sec tion 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. If the seriousness of the offence is considered to be the sole criteria for the rejection of bail, then in no case a child delinquent would be released on bail which would frustrate the very purpose of the beneficial legislation i. e. the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. He further argued that the opinion appended by the Juvenile Justice Board is purely imaginary. The opinion does not find backing by any evi dence on the record and therefore, the Ju venile Justice Board as well as the Sessions Judge were not right in rejecting the bail application and not according the benefit of bail to the revisionist. I do agree.
(3.) A look at the order passed by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Mau would reveal that the Board rejected the application just on the ground that the offence complained of against the revision ist was of a serious nature and if he is released, the very purpose of the justice would frustrate. As the seriousness of the offence is not a contingency for the refusal of bail under section 12 of the Juvenile Jus tice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, hence, on this ground the refusal cannot be held to be justified. The other considerations on which the bail was re fused by the Juvenile Justice Board were just the creation of the mind of the Presid ing Judge as these considerations did not have any backing by the evidence on the record. Therefore, the other grounds on which the bail was refused were also not justified and the application should not have been refused by the Juvenile Justice Board. From the order of the Appellate Court it is apparent that the Sessions Judge did not take the trouble to analyse the ma terial on the record and he in one line en dorsed the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Therefore, the order of the Sessions Judge can also not be said to be a justified order. Consequently, I am of the view that the orders passed by both the authorities below are improper and the revisionist should have been granted bail as there was no material to bring his case for rejection un der section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.;