Shambhu vs State

P.K. Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist.

This revision has been filed u/s 38 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as the Act). There is no dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act. The revisionist was involved in a murder case. He applied for bail before the learned Magistrate who rejected the bail prayer vide order dated 27.6.2000 observing that at the pointing out of the applicant knife alleged to have been used in commission of the crime was recovered. In these circumstances, he is likely to affect the course of justice and it is also likely that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence in collusion with some criminals. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.7.2000.

These orders of both the Courts below have been challenged in this revision.

The main submission of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that there was no material before the learned Magistrate to make observation as aforesaid and such observation cannot be made on conjectures and surmises. The learned Sessions Judge unfortunately has not examined the matter on the basis of the evidence on record. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the revisionist is the main assailant. May it be so, Section 18(1) of the Act provides that a juvenile has to be released on bail and there are only two grounds on which the bail may be refused to the juvenile, one is that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring juvenile into association with any known criminal and other ground is that the release is likely to expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material in support of any of these two conditions which may persuade the Court not to release the juvenile on bail. The finding has to be given by the learned Magistrate or by the appellate court on the basis of material adduced before it and not surmises and conjectures. Having not considered these aspects of the matter in the orders of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, the order passed by both the Courts below cannot be sustained.

The revision is therefore, allowed. The impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are set aside and the revisionist involved in Case Crime No. 93 of 2000, under Sections 307 and 302, I.P.C. P.S. Muradnagar, district Ghaziabad is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by his guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned.