Sunil Kumar vs The State of Raj.

Banwari Lal Sharma, J.—This is a revision petition against the order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar in Criminal Appeal No. 47/2015, whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 12.02.2015 passed by the learned Member, Juvenile Justice Board, Sriganganagar, rejecting the application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act in FIR No. 605/2104, P.S. Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar has been dismissed.

According to the prosecution case, Vijay Kumar, who was admitted at Government Hospital, Sriganganagar, gave his parcha bayan alleging that at about 11.00 p.m. in the night, when he was going to his home on his motor-cycle with his wife, Kaku Arora, Katali Valmiki along with two other persons whistled. When he tried to stop them from doing so, they threatened him. Thereafter, Kaku Arora, Katali Valmiki and 4-5 other persons reached at his home having swords, base-ball bats in their hands and gave beatings to him.

On the basis of this, an FIR No. 605/2014 was registered at P.S. Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar for the offences under Sections 354A, 458, 323 and 324 IPC and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, the petitioner and other accused were taken in custody and since the petitioner is a juvenile, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Sriganganagar. The mother of the petitioner preferred application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for releasing him on bail but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2015.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2015, an appeal was preferred but the same has also been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar vide judgment dated 20.02.2015. Hence, this revision petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile and the learned Juvenile Justice Board, considering the gravity of the offence, rejected the application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and so also the learned appellate court. He submitted that the gravity of the offence cannot be considered in the case of juvenile.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition in general.

The provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 are mandatory and the intention of the legislature is to grant bail to a juvenile irrespective of nature or gravity of offence and the bail can be denied only in the case where 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.

This court, in catena of decisions, while relying upon the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') has held that bail to the juvenile can only be refused if anyone of the grounds envisaged in Section 12 of the Act exists and so far as gravity is concerned, it is not covered under Section 12 of the Act. It was also observed that the Parliament reconsidered the entire matter and repealed the old Act of 1986 by introducing new Act No. 56 of 2000, raising the age from 16 to 18 years and this was done keeping in view the welfare of the child so that even after committing an offence a child may not become a hardened criminal but he may reform himself. So far as the ground of dismissal of bail application on the ground that his release may bring the juvenile into association with known criminal is concerned, this court, while considering the definition of the word "association" held that the single instance of a child delinquent joining the company of some known criminal or criminals would not be sufficient to satisfy the definition of the word "association" used in Section 12 of the Act and if his past conduct has been of such a nature, which indicates his continuous association with known criminal or criminals, then there would be justification for inferring that there would be likelihood that his release may bring him in association with known criminals.

In the case in hand, the report of the Probation Officer was called and perused, wherein nothing adverse was reported against the petitioner nor it was reported that his past conduct was of such a nature which could indicate his continuous association with known criminal or criminals.

Both the courts below rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of gravity of the offence and that his release may bring him in association with hardened criminals which may put his life into danger.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any special reason to hold that there is any possibility that on his release, the petitioner may come in association with hardened criminal which may put his life into danger.

Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar as well as the order dated 12.02.2015 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sriganganagar are hereby quashed.

Let the revisionist Sunil Kumar @ Katali be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond amounting to Rs. 40,000/- by his natural guardian mother with two solvent sureties amounting to Rs. 20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sriganganagar with stipulation that the revisionist juvenile will be produced on each and every date of hearing before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sriganganagar or where the case is being transferred and whenever called upon to do so. Further, she along with members of family will keep a watch over the juvenile that he may not indulge in any other criminal activity.