SHAMBHU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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. .