JUDGMENT : (Through Video Conference) 1. By medium of the instant application, the applicant/juvenile, namely, Junaid-ul-Islam S/o Ghulam Nabi Dar R/o Village Sail, Tehsil Awantipora, District Pulwama, through his father, is seeking his release on bail in connection with FIR No.03/2019 registered in Police Station Lakhanpur, Jammu, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 13 ULA, 120-B RPC and 7/25 Arms Act. 2. Mr. G.N. Shaheen, the learned counsel for the applicant/juvenile, submits that the applicant/juvenile has been constrained to approach this Court for seeking the relief claimed hereinabove in view of the fact that the Court of competent jurisdiction, i.e., Juvenile Justice Board, Kathua, has refused to hand over the juvenile to his father on bond in terms of order dated 23rd of April, 2019. It is further submitted that the applicant/juvenile has not committed any offence of whatsoever nature, but has been implicated in the aforesaid FIR on a mere suspicion and that there is no legal bar in handing over the applicant/juvenile to his father on bond. It is pleaded that the applicant/juvenile is in custody of the Juvenile Home at R.S. Pura, thereby depriving him of his right to liberty in violation of the guarantees provided by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the applicant/juvenile will abide by all the conditions, which this Court may impose on him while granting the bail and that the applicant/juvenile will not indulge in any illegal activity and will face the trial regularly. In the end, the applicant/juvenile has prayed that the instant application be allowed and the respondents be directed to release him from the custody forthwith. 3. Per Contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents, while resisting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant/juvenile, submits that in case the applicant/juvenile is admitted to bail, there is every apprehension that he may get associated with unknown criminals/terrorists and that his release may also expose him to moral danger. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. 5. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. 5. Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2015"), as applicable to the Union territory of Jammu & Kashmir, provides that when any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or 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 or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit person. In the case on hand, admittedly, the applicant has been found to be a juvenile after proper enquiry and, thus, the Juvenile Justice Board, Kathua, was required to consider the application filed by the applicant/juvenile in terms of the mandate of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, however, the Board has rejected the application on mere apprehension by observing that in case the applicant/juvenile is admitted to bail, there is every apprehension that he may again get associated with unknown criminals/ terrorists. 6. It, needs, must be said that the object of the Act of 2015 is to ensure proper care, treatment and protection to the juveniles and the Board had to consider the application filed by the applicant not only having regard to the fact that the applicant is a juvenile, but also in keeping with the scope of the Act of 2015. The Board, however, has, without there being any material and on mere apprehension, rejected the bail in favour of the applicant/juvenile. 7. The settled position of law, as evolved by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a catena of judicial dictums on the subject governing the grant of bail, is that there is no strait jacket formula or settled rules for the use of discretion, but, at the time of deciding the question of "bail or jail", Court has to utilize its judicial discretion. Not only that, as per the settled law, the discretion to grant of bail has to be exercised according to rules and principles as laid down by the Code and various judicial decisions. Not only that, as per the settled law, the discretion to grant of bail has to be exercised according to rules and principles as laid down by the Code and various judicial decisions. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial, but, in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he/she has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he/she should be deprived of his/her liberty upon only the belief that he/she will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 8. The term "judicial discretion" has been very well explained by an eminent jurist Benjamin Cardozo. In the words of Benjamin Cardozo "the Judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. 8. The term "judicial discretion" has been very well explained by an eminent jurist Benjamin Cardozo. In the words of Benjamin Cardozo "the Judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system and subordinated to the primordial necessity of order in the social life. Wide enough, in all conscience, is the field of discretion that remains. Even so, it is useful to notice the tart terms of Lord Camden that "the discretion of a Judge is the law of tyrants. It is always known, it is different in different men; it is causal, and depends upon constitution, temper and passion. In the best, it is oftentimes caprice, in the worst, it is every vice, folly and passion to which human nature is liable". 9. Deprivation of liberty is tantamount to punishment. The principal that punishment begins after conviction and that every man is deemed to be innocent unless duly tried and duly found guilty has its application to the facts of the instant case in all the fours. The object of the bail is to seek attendance and appearance of the accused at the trial by a reasonable amount of bail. Bail cannot be withheld as a means of punishment. Prison hell destroys the tender sentiments of a person, moreso when the person is a juvenile. The applicant/juvenile has been languishing in the jail for the last more than one year by now. The discretion has to be exercised on well based foundations of law and one cannot get swayed by sentiments. Temper and passion has no role to play in exercising the discretion for the grant of bail. The entire case against the applicant appears to be based on documentary evidence and the custody of the applicant/juvenile, under such set of circumstances, is not justified. The applicant/ juvenile cannot be refused bail for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 10. The entire case against the applicant appears to be based on documentary evidence and the custody of the applicant/juvenile, under such set of circumstances, is not justified. The applicant/ juvenile cannot be refused bail for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 10. In the above background, the instant application is allowed and the applicant/juvenile is admitted to bail in connection with case bearing FIR No. 03/2019 registered in Police Station Lakhanpur, Jammu, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 13 ULA, 120-B RPC and 7/25 Arms Act, with further direction to the Incharge Juvenile Home, R.S. Pura, to hand over the applicant/juvenile to his father subject, however, to the following terms and conditions : I. The father of the applicant/ juvenile shall furnish a bail bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, with a surety of the like amount, before the Incharge Juvenile Home, R.S. Pura; II. The applicant/juvenile will hot hamper or tamper with the prosecution evidence nor will he jump over the bail; and III. The applicant/juvenile shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the State without prior permission of the IO of the aforesaid case and shall Cooperate with the concerned investigating agency, as and when required; 11. Bail Application disposed of as above. 12. Learned Registrar (Judicial) of this wing of the High Court to forthwith send a copy of this judgment to the learned Registrar (Judicial) of the Srinagar wing of the High Court, who shall provide the same to the learned counsel for the applicant/juvenile.