Chande Lal vs State of C.G.

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—Heard.

In this revision, filed u/s 53 of the Juvenile (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act 2000"), the Juvenile namely Chandelal, aiged about 15 years, has questioned the legality and propriety of the order dated 21.3.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 42/2005 by the Sessions Judge, Sarguja, Ambikapur, arising out of order dated 2.3.2005 passed in Criminal Case No. 30/2005 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambikapur. By the said order dated 02.3.2005, the Board has dismissed his application for releasing him on bail filed u/s 12 of the aforesaid Act 2000 which was confirmed in appeal filed u/s 52 of the aforesaid Act.

The facts of the case are that on 8.2.2005, Ku. Balmani, aged about 15 years was sleeping in her house alongwith her friend namely Savita. Her parents (father and mother) were not present in the house as they had gone in some function in the village. However, her grand father and grand mother were in the house. At about 10 P.M. the applicant alongwith the other juvenile offenders namely Rajkumar, Dilip and Bablu entered into her house and took the prosecutrix from there. On the cries made by the prosecutrix, her grand father and grand mother woke up who were sleeping in a separate room. When they resisted, they were stopped by the offenders by pelting stones on them. The further allegations are that the prosecutrix was taken to a place known as Kalihan (thrashing place of crops) where all the offenders committed sexual intercourse against her will. She was released at about 3 O''clock in the morning and thereafter only she could return to her house. A report was lodged on which crime No. 22/2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (2) (g) of the IPC was registered against the juvenile offenders.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court lost sight of the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the Act 2000 and committed an error of law by rejecting the bail application filed by the applicant. He refers to the various provisions of the Act and argues that the word like "shall" used in Section 12 is writ large to show that the Board was under mandatory obligation to release the applicant on bail when there was no dispute regarding his age.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records of the Sessions Court as well as the Board.

The considerations for bail are summarized vide Section 12 of the Act 2000. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 provides that any juvenile accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, if arrested or detained or brought before the Board, he/ she shall be released on bail notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force. The words used by the Legislature like "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973" or "in any other law for the time being in force" indicate that considerations which are germane for granting or refusing bail to the persons who are not juvenile delinquents shall not come into play for granting or refusing bail to them. (Rahul Rajendra Mishra v. State of M.P. 2001 (1) MPLJ 172).

If we examine the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, then it makes it manifest that ordinarily the Board is under obligation to release the juvenile on bail with or without surety, but the juveniles shall not be so released in certain circumstances as the latter part of section also uses the word "Shall" imposing certain mandatory conditions prohibiting the release of the juvenile by the Board. These conditions are as follows :

(i) if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal; or

(ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger; or

(iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

Therefore, it is clear that when an application is filed by the juvenile for releasing him on bail u/s 12 of the Act, ordinarily it would be obligatory on the part of the Board to release him on bail, but he shall not be released on bail if it appears to the Board that either of the 3 conditions, referred to above, is coming in the way of so releasing the applicant or the juvenile on bail.

If we examine the present case, it would appear that the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal treating it to be a case of third category and holding that if the applicant is released on bail, his release would defeat the ends of justice. The learned Sessions Judge has mentioned in his order the reasons on which the ends of justice would be defeated. It has been stated that the prosecutrix is aged about 15 years and the juvenile offenders entered into the house of the prosecutrix by opening the door and thereafter, have forcefully dragged her to a distant place even after resistance of her grand-father and grand-mother and committed gang rape upon her. Not only this, the medical examination of the prosecutrix also reveals that there was injury on the private parts with bleeding and the hymn was torn at about 3 O''clock and 6 O''clock position.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, the Sessions Court has rightly held that the release of the juvenile on bail would defeat the ends of justice. I do not find any merit in this revision as the impugned order neither suffers with any material irregularity nor any such illegality which may warrant an interference of this Court in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The revision is dismissed.

Records of the courts below be sent immediately alongwith a copy of this order.