The general rule under the Juvenile Justice Act is to grant bail to juvenile offenders, and rejection should be the exception, based on reasonable grounds related to the safety and justice for the juvenile.

Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.

The facts in brief are that application on behalf of juvenile offender Sonu Tomar (revisionist) has been moved before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad for grant of bail under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2000. When learned Magistrate rejected the bail application, then appeal under Section 52 of aforesaid Act had been moved for grant of bail to him. This appeal had been rejected by Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad by impugned judgement and order dated 08.12.2003, against which, present revision has been preferred.

2. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the revisionist.

3. Learned AGA was present and argued on behalf on behalf of the opposite parties and considered the contentions of learned AGA and the grounds mentioned in memo of revision.

4. A perusal of the impugned judgment and record reveals that learned Sessions Judge had considered the facts and circumstances of the of the matter as well as gravity of the offence and manner, in which, it was committed and thereafter it was held that ground of bail to the revisionist will not only frustrate the purpose of justice but if release the appellant is likely to fall into association of criminal, so it would not be just and proper to enlarge him on bail. On this ground, learned Sessions Judge had rejected the request of bail of the revisionist and dismissed the appeal.

5. I am in agreement with this contention mentioned in memo of revision that gravity and manner of offence will not make any decision in a case where accused is juvenile. Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 deals with provision relating to bail of juvenile offender, which reads as under:

Section 12 Bail of Juvenile (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2) of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear 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 his release would defeat the ends of justice.

6. Under the aforesaid Act, general role is for granting the bail of juvenile in conflict with law and rejection is exception. The bail of said juvenile can be refused, if there appears 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 his release would defeat the ends of justice.

7. In the present matter, learned Sessions Judge had considered thus factual aspect of the matter and, after scrutinizing, they gave finding of fact that grant of bail to the revisionist and appellant will not only frustrate the purpose of justice, but appellant, if release, is likely to fall into the association with criminal, so it would not be just and proper to grant him bail.

8. The factual aspect of findings of fact on these points cannot be challenged through revision. In Deb Narayan Halder vs. Anushree Halder (Smt),2004 S.C.C. (Cri) 164, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"It is well settled that the appellate or revisional court while setting aside the findings recorded by the court below must notice those findings, and if the appellate or revisional court comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court are untenable, record its reasons for coming to the said conclusion. Where the findings are findings of fact it must discuss the evidence on record which justify the reversal of the findings recorded by the court below. This is particularly so when findings recorded by the trial court are sought to be set aside by an appellate or