Sandeep Singh vs State of Uttarakhand

Dharam Veer, J.—This criminal revision, preferred u/s 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000), (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.6.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli (Gopeshwar) in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2010, Sandeep Singh v. State and the order dated 29.3.2010 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Chamoli.

Urgency Application No. 3170 of 2010 is allowed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.

In brief, the facts of the case are that the revisionist-Sandeep Singh (juvenile) was an accused in Case Crime No. 1/2010 under Sections 376, 506 452/511 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) at Patwari Circle Narayanbagar, Tehsil Tharali, District Chamoli and has been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board. The father of the revisionist, namely, Lakhpat Singh, being the father and natural guardian of the revisionist, moved an application for bail of revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board, which was rejected vide order dated 29.3.2010. Against that order, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Chamoli, who too vide judgment and order dated 10.6.2010 dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court.

Before further discussion it is pertinent to mention Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), which is reproduced below:

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 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.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist argued that the finding recorded by the courts below is not correct and justified as both of the courts below have not disclosed in their judgments on the basis of which they came to the conclusion that the release of revisionist 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. I find force in the argument of counsel for the revisionist. The Juvenile Justice Board, Chamoli and the Sessions Judge, Chamoli have rejected the bail application of the revisionist on the ground that if the revisionist/accused would be released on bail, there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal and which may expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and that his release would defeat the ends of justice. However, learned Sessions Judge and Juvenile Justice Board have not stated any reason whatsoever on the basis of which they come to above-said conclusion. Thus, the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Chamoli dated 10.6.2010 and the order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 29.3.2010 are not as per the spirit of law and also the findings of the courts below are not based on any reasoning. Hence, order of both the courts below are liable to be set aside.

After perusal of the records and hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, there is no evidence on the record which may prove that the release of the revisionist will bring into the association of any known criminal or expose moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

For the reasons recorded above, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 10.6.2010 of the Sessions Judge, Chamoli and order dated 29.3.2010 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Chamoli, are set aside. However, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the revisionist deserves bail at this stage. Let the revisionist Sandeep Singh (juvenile) be released on bail and be given in the custody of his father and natural guardian Lakhpat Singh, if he furnishes a personal bond and two sureties with his personal undertaking that he will not allow the revisionist to go in the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Chamoli. (Bail Application No. 620 of 2010 stands allowed accordingly).