SANJAY KUMAR (MINOR) Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.