Rajesh Lakra vs State of C.G.

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (henceforth "the Act, 2000") read with Section 397/ 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth "Cr.P.C."), juvenile/applicant-Rajendra Lakra has filed the instant revision questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 10-4-2014 by which his appeal under Section 52 of the Act, 2000 has been dismissed by the Court of Sessions, Jashpur. The necessary facts required for adjudication of the instant revision are as under:--

1.1. Applicant-Rajesh Lakra, aged about 16 years, was arrested by Police Station, Narayanpur in Crime No. 15/2014 for commission of offence under Sections 376 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth "IPC") read with Sections 3and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (henceforth "the Act, 2012") and was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Jashpur (henceforth "the Board").

1.2. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 14-2-2014 between 4.00 a.m. to 5.00 a.m., the applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix and also caused her grievous hurt leading to lodging of a report and filing of a charge-sheet against him before the Board.

1.3. The applicant filed an application under Section 12 of the Act, 2000 before the Board claiming his release on bail. A report was called by the Board from its Probation Officer and after considering the report, the Board, by order dated 12-3-2014, rejected the said application and directed to keep the applicant in an observation home.

1.4. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed an appeal under Section 52 of the Act, 2000, being Criminal Appeal No. 28/2014 before the Court of Sessions, Jashpur. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, finding no merit in the appeal and accepting the findings of the Board, rejected the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 10-4-2014.

Shri J.K. Saxena, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the Board as well as the Court of Session has committed an apparent and manifest legal error in rejecting the application filed by the applicant in an unwarranted manner. He would further submit that the applicant has got no criminal proclivity and there is no reasonable ground for believing that the release of the applicant 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.

On the other hand, Shri Prasun Bhaduri, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/non-applicant would support the impugned judgment and would submit that grant of bail to the applicant would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and as such his application has rightly been rejected by the Board and the Court of Session.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the Social Investigation Report, dated 28-7-2014 submitted by the Probation Officer of the Board.

The question that falls for consideration is whether the Court of Session was justified in rejecting the application filed by the applicant for grant of bail under Section 12 of the Act, 2000?

Before considering the submissions raised, it would be appropriate to have a quick glimpse on the relevant provision governing bail to a juvenile enacted in the Act, 2000.

Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 2000 reads thus :--

"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 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."

Section 12 of the Act, 2000 also enumerates the following grounds of. exceptions when bail could be denied to a juvenile:--

"(i) if there appear 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."

A close and careful perusal of the aforementioned provision would show that a juvenile must be granted bail unless his case falls within one of the three grounds of exceptions engrafted therein. Unless any of the three-grounds of exceptions is satisfied, bail to a juvenile must not be refused. Thus, it has been mandated upon the Board/Court to, notwithstanding anything contained in Cr.P.C. or in any other law for the time being in force, release an apparent juvenile, who is in jail, on bail with or without surety and the Board/Court may not exercise its discretion in his favour and so enlarge him on bail 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.

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rajinder Chandra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another, and Pratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, , held that the Act, 2000 is a beneficial legislation for the benefit of juveniles and must be construed as such.

Construing Section 12 of the Act, 2000, it has been held by the Orissa High Court in Re-A Juvenile Vs. State of Orissa, , as under :--

"9. On the discussion above, I am satisfied that this is a fit case where bail should be granted to the petitioner. Let the petitioner be released on bail on either of his parents furnishing bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khurda in the aforesaid case. Either of the parents shall also file an affidavit undertaking to produce the juvenile in the Court/Forum as and when necessary and to keep him under close observation and not allow him to be associated with any criminal or undesirable persons. The bail application is allowed."

Likewise, the Delhi High Court, in- Ravi-Ul-Islam Vs. State (NCT), , held as under :--

"6. Looking at the Social Investigation Report, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the release of the juvenile would bring him into association of any known criminal or expose him to any physical or moral danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Accordingly, in view of the specific provisions of Section 12 of the said Act, the petitioner would be clearly entitled to be released on bail."

In Naisul Khatun Vs. State of Assam and Others, , a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court analysed the criteria for deciding bail application of a juvenile under Section 12 of the Act, 2000. The Court laid down the correct law on the point as follows :--

"Unlike the usual cases where bail is applied for by an accused and he has to make out a case for grant of bail, the position is the reverse in the case of a bail for a juvenile in conflict with law. Here, it is not for the juvenile to make out a case why he should be granted bail but it is for the arresting authority to satisfy the Juvenile Justice Board that the juvenile should not be released on bail because of the existence of any one of the three circumstances mentioned above. The first and second circumstances are clearly intended to ensure the safety of the juvenile while the third circumstance is to prevent a defeat of the ends of justice. The onus, therefore, is a reverse onus and is more akin to the prosecution asking for a remand of an accused into custody rather than a prayer by the accused for being released from custody. The language used in Section 12(1) of the Act is rather interesting in this context, and shorn of unnecessary verbiage, the Section would read : ''such (a juvenile) shall be released on bail, but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to.....''. Refusal to bail out a juvenile is, therefore, more in the nature of protective custody rather than penal custody."

This Court also in Sandeep Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, , while granting bail to a juvenile alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 399, 402, 34, IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, observed thus:--

"The probable logical meaning of using of phraseology like ''reasonable grounds for believing'' in Section 12(1) of the Act, 2000 clearly indicates that the ''reasonable grounds for believing'' is not the same thing as ''suspicion'' or ''doubt'' and the guess work-of the Board and is something higher than that. It is more than prima facie grounds and it must contemplate substantial probable cause for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to put him under either of the three conditions mentioned in Section 12(1) of the Act and the provision requires the existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves worth reasonably believing by a Court of Law. Unless there appears to be existence of such circumstances, in a particular case, the mandate of Legislature commanding the prohibition of release of juvenile cannot be exercised by the Board. Whether such grounds are existing or not is a matter of fact to be examined with reference to each particular case."

Now, coming back to the facts of the instant case, I find that the case of the applicant/juvenile has to be considered in above exposition of law.

The applicant is apparently a juvenile and there is no dispute on his juvenility. In his Social Investigation Report, dated 28-7-2014, the Probation Officer of the Board has submitted that the juvenile/applicant has been obedient to his parents and has positive and good terms with the local residents. His father is an Assistant Teacher in a local school and also has an agricultural land. The applicant has been a football player of National level. The present was his first offence and prior to it, he was a sociable juvenile. The report further indicates that if he is not released on bail, it is likely to affect him morally, physically and psychologically.

In view of the aforementioned Social Investigation Report dated 28-7-2014, it cannot be concluded that release of the applicant/juvenile on bail would 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.

On the basis of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered opinion that both the Board and the Court of Session have committed legal error in exercising their jurisdiction. The order dated 12-3-2014 passed by the Board rejecting the application for bail under Section 12 of the Act, 2000 and the impugned judgment dated 10-4-2014 passed by the Court of Sessions dismissing the appeal under Section 52 of the Act, 2000 suffer from patent error of law and cannot be sustained. Concludingly, the revision is allowed. The order dated 12-3-2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jashpur and the impugned judgment dated 10-4-2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur are hereby set aside. Juvenile/applicant-Rajesh Lakra is directed to be released on bail on his father Marshal Lakra''s executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000 (Fifty thousand) with two solvent sureties each in the like sum of the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Jashpur and also on filing an affidavit by him before the Board to the effect that:--

"(i) he shall be responsible for well-being of his son/the applicant;

(ii) he shall ensure that the applicant continues his studies and does not fall into bad company; and

(iii) he shall report to the Juvenile Justice Board, Jashpur on 10th October, 2014 and thereafter, once in two months on the dates fixed by the Board regarding the progress made by his son/the applicant, till the applicant attains/completes the age of 18 years."