Juvenile bail applications must consider potential dangers and previous criminal associations, emphasizing protection against harm.

1. Heard on I.A.No.2/2016, application for urgent hearing.

2. On due consideration, the same is disposed of.

3. With the consent of the parties, heard the matter finally.

4. Brief facts required for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that Crime No.176/2015 has been registered against the present applicant, juvenile, along with co - accused Kamlesh Verma by Dongergarh police for the offence under S.365, S.364, S.302, S.201, S.34 of the IPC. Police had filed charge sheet against the present applicant before the Juvenile Justice Board and charge sheet was filed separately against the co - accused before regular Court. The applicant had filed an application under S.12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short 'the Act, 2000). The Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 16-09-2015 dismissed the said application of bail and held that if the applicant be granted bail, he may come into contact of criminals, hence, it would not be appropriate to give the custody of the applicant to his parent. Against the said order the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.67/2015 before the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, C. G. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 02-11-2015 affirmed the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and held that at the instance of the memorandum recorded by the co - accused, mobile of deceased Suraj Kumar Verma, knife used for murder of Suraj Kumar Verma and the motorcycle of the co - accused were seized at the instance of the present applicant. The present applicant was not present in his house on the date of incident, his parents not informed anybody for his absence. The applicant was in contact of person having criminal antecedent and mentality, it goes to show that there was no any control of the parents on the said juvenile. The learned Sessions Judge observed that if bail is granted, the applicant may continue with the company of criminals, hence, dismissed the said appeal. Against the said order, the applicant preferred the instant criminal revision under S.53 of the Act, 2000 wherein it is submitted that the application filed on behalf of the applicant was wrongly rejected. There was no any eye - witness to the incident, the case is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. Only on the memorandum statement of the accused, the applicant has been implicated in the matter. There is no any adverse report of the probationary officer in the matter; there is no material to show that there is any likelihood to bring him into association with the known criminals or to expose any moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. The applicant is a permanent resident and there is no chance of his absconding or tempering the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he may be granted bail during pendency of the said criminal case against him.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no any evidence against the present applicant. Only the memorandum statement of other co - accused was recorded and at the instance of the present applicant one mobile, knife and one motorcycle of the co - accused were seized. There is no any FSL report. It is not proved that the mobile belongs to the deceased. There is no any report of probation officer. It is further submitted that postmortem report of the deceased does not supports the case of the prosecution that he was given poison in liquor and thereafter injuries were inflicted by the knife. There is no any report of probation officer that after his release th