Jayprakash vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pritinker Diwaker

Present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 22.10.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Korea (Baikunthpur) in Criminal Appeal No. 130/2011 dismissing the appeal preferred by the applicant assailing the order dated 28.09.2011 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Baikunthpur, District Korea in Criminal Case No. 52/2011. Facts of the case in brief are that on 26.8.2011 the applicant is alleged to have kidnapped one Babu alias Yuvraj Singh aged about one and half year at the relevant time. Undisputedly, the applicant is minor aged about 16 years. The applicant filed an application before the Principal Magistrate/President, Juvenile Justice Board, Korea (Baikunthpur) u/s 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short "the Act of 2000") for grant of bail which was rejected on the ground that as the applicant is involved in commission of the serious offences and that his father is also having a criminal record against him, he is not entitled for bail. Order of the Magistrate was assailed by the applicant by way of appeal before the Sessions Judge, Korea (Baikunthpur) which has been dismissed by the order impugned mainly on the ground that father of the accused/applicant also have criminal background and as many as 14 cases are pending against him and that if the applicant is released on bail, ends of justice would be defeated and there is every possibility of his coming into contact with known criminals.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the Courts below have completely overlooked the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 in placing reliance on the report submitted by the Probation Officer Annexure A-2. He submits that merely on the basis of report of the probation officer, the Courts below should not have rejected the application of the applicant for grant of bail and should have considered the fact that the application was filed on behalf of the applicant by his natural guardian i.e. mother who obviously does not have any criminal background against her. He submits that detention of the applicant in remand home along with the hardened criminals would adversely affect his life and therefore he should be released on bail.

Counsel for the respondent/State however submits that the application and the appeal of the applicant have rightly been rejected by the Courts below.

Before drawing any conclusion regarding the correctness or otherwise of the orders impugned, glance of the relevant provision i.e. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 becomes necessitous, which is reproduced as hereunder for ready reference:

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 1[or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person] 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.

(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub section (1) by the officer in charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.

A bare reading of section 12(1) makes it clear that 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. It further says that such person 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.

Similarly, Section 13 of the Act of 2000 reads as under:

Information to parent, guardian or probation officer.- Where a juvenile is arrested, the officer incharge of the police station or the special juvenile police unit to which the juvenile is brought shall, as soon as may be after the arrest, inform-

(a) the parent or guardian of the juvenile, if he can be found of such arrest and direct him to be present at the Board before which the juvenile will appear; and

(b) the probation officer of such arrest to enable him to obtain information regarding the antecedents and family background of the juvenile and other material circumstances likely to be of assistance to the Board for making the inquiry.

In the present case, in compliance of the provisions of the Act of 2000, the report of the Probation Officer was called by the Juvenile Justice Board, which reads as under:

(Vernacular matter deleted)

A bare perusal of the said report makes it clear that as many as 14 cases are pending against the father of the applicant. Report further shows that on account of criminal activities of his father, the applicant would also tend towards crime and his family members would have no control on him. Report further says that the applicant is following the conduct of his father because of which terror is prevailing in the society and that there is nothing on record produced on behalf of the applicant regarding his education etc. and that if he is released on bail, there is every possibility of his repeating the offence.

Considering the report of the probation officer, learned Magistrate has rejected the application for bail filed by the applicant which has been later confirmed by the appellate Court also. Section 12 of the Act provides that the applicant shall not be 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. In this case, from the documents on record particularly the report of the probation officer, it is clear that if the applicant is released on bail, naturally he would live in the company of his father against whom 14 criminal cases are pending, and indulge himself in further criminal activities which in turn would defeat the ends of justice. Accordingly, the orders passed by both the courts below not granting bail to the applicant are just and proper and no interference therewith is called for. Revision thus being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is hereby dismissed.