Rais vs State of U.P.

G.D. Dube, J.—This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of Sessions Judge Jhansi rejecting the appeal of the Petitioner preferred u/s 37 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as ''Act'' only). The Petitioner was arrested in connection with a crime u/s 380/411 of IPC. The Juvenile Magistrate observed that as the Petitioner was involved in a case u/s 399/402 of IPC there is probability that the juvenile delinquent will go into the association of the criminals, hence he had directed the Petitioner to be kept in a Rajkiya Samprechara Grih.

Aggrieved by the above order an appeal was filed before Sessions Judge u/s 37 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge had rejected this appeal.

It has been argued that there was no material before the appellate court and the Juvenile Magistrate that the Appellant was likely to go into contact of criminals. It was urged that case u/s 399/402 of IPC was started on the same day on which alleged recovery of seven ''Ashta Dhatu, idol is said to have been made from the house of the Petitioner. It was a so argued that house in which the above idol was recovered, was in the possession of the father of the Petitioner, hence father of the Petitioner ought to have been made responsible for the recovery of the alleged stolen idol.

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today annexing thereto copy of first information report lodged in a case u/s 399/402, IPC registered against the Petitioner on 18-3-1991. Annexure 3 to the supplementary affidavit further shows that on 18-3-1991 the alleged recovery of idols is said to have been made. The theft was allegedly reported on 6-8-1991 in the concerned police station.

Section 18 of the Act reads as under:

Bail and custody of Juveniles. - (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 Juvenile Court, 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 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 in an observation home or a place of safety in the prescribed manner (but not in a police station or jail) untill he can be brought before a Juvenile Court.

(3) When such person is not released on bail under Sub-section (1) by the Juvenile Court 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 perusal of the aforesaid Section indicates that it is mandatory to release the juvenile. It has not been disputed that the Petitioner is a juvenile as defined in the act. Both the courts below admit this fact. The only restrictions imposed on release of Petitioner on bail are as under:

(i) If there appears reasonable ground for believing that release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

(ii) Expose him to moral danger, or

(iii) That his release would defeat the end of justice.

The lower court have not brought the case of Petitioner within Clauses 2 and 3 mentioned above. Only this much was said that he may come in association of the criminals. There was no proper evidence before the two courts below Only registration of a case u/s 399, 402 of IPC on the same date of recovery against the Petitioner was not sufficient for coming to the conclusion that the Petitioner was likely to come into the contact with association of any known criminals. The word ''known'' has not been used by the parliament in the Section without purpose. By use of the word ''known'' the Parliament requires that the court must know the full particulars of the criminal with which the delinquent is likely to come into association. There is no such evidence or findings. It appears that the procedure u/s 19 of the act was also not followed. The parent or guardian or Probation Officer was not informed about the juvenile''s arrest. Considering the circumstances of the case I find that Appellate court as well as, Juvenile Magistrate had erred in not releasing the Juvenile on bail.

The revision is allowed. The orders of the Sessions Judge dated 7-6-1991 in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1991 Rais v. State and orders of the lower court dated 10-5-1991 are set aside. Revisionist Rais be released on bail on furnishing two sureties for Rs. 3000 (Rupees three thousand only) each and a personal bond in the like amount in Crime No. 275 of 1990, u/s 380/411 of IPC. P.S. Mauranipur, District Jhansi. One of the surety shall be the father of the Petitioner.

Certified copy of this order be issued to the learned Counsel for the revisionist within 24 hours on payment of usual charges.