Tarsem vs State of Haryana

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—This criminal revision has been filed by Tarsem, who is accused in case FIR No. 158 dated 6.9.2004 under Sections 376, 363, 366, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Narwana, against the order dated 2.3.2006, passed by Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner u/s 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'') against the order dated 18.1.2006, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hisar, rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, has been dismissed.

In this case, on a complaint made by Ramdia, father of the prosecutrix Sonia, the aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioner and one Sanjay, on the allegation that Sonia was abducted by the accused persons. Subsequently, the girl was recovered and she made the statement that she was raped by the petitioner. The petitioner, in this case, was arrested on 7.9.2004. At the time of the alleged occurrence, he was less than 18 years of age. Vide order dated 3.6.2005, passed by Sessions Judge, Jind, the petitioner was declared juvenile. Thereafter, he filed an application for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, which was rejected on 9.8.2005. Thereafter, he filed second bail application, which was dismissed on 18.1.2006. Against that order, the petitioner filed appeal u/s 52 of the Act, which has been dismissed by Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide order dated 2.3.2006, while observing as under :-

The appellant has given his age as 19 years in his application. There is no material to show that the appellant was studying in any school at the time of his arrest. No doubt the custody period has been long but the trial is proceeding and has reached a crucial stage and the prosecutrix is still to be examined. The Juvenile Board had taken notice of the fact that the appellant was kept in District Jail Jind and has sought the explanation but this fact itself does not entitle the appellant to bail. There is no material to show that the prosecutrix was `habitual''. Even if she had been, it would not have mattered. In my view if the bail is allowed it would defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. However, the Juvenile Board is directed to expedite the trial.

I have heard counsel for the parties and the orders, passed by the Courts below.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 7.9.2004. He was juvenile on the date of the alleged occurrence as was so found by the Sessions Judge, Jind, vide order dated 3.6.2005. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, while rejecting the bail application filed by the petitioner has completely ignored the order dated 3.6.2005, passed by Sessions Judge, Jind, and has wrongly observed that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner was studying in school and was a juvenile at the time of the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel submits that u/s 12 of the Act, granting of bail to a juvenile is mandatory and the same can be denied only if it appears that his release is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Counsel contends that none of these facts exists in the present case and the Courts below have denied bail to the petitioner only on the ground that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious and his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while considering the case of a juvenile for bail, the Court should not sway with the nature of the offence committed by the juvenile. The bail should not be denied to the juvenile on the ground of gravity of offence. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decision of this Court in Sham Lal and Another v. State of Haryana, 2004 (4) RCC 424 where this Court in similar circumstances has granted bail to the juvenile, who was alleged to have committed gang rape.

Per contra, counsel for the respondent-State submits that in this case, the petitioner has committed a heinous crime and the prosecutrix is yet to be examined, therefore, the petitioner should not be ordered to be release on regular bail.

After hearing counsel for the parties and keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in Manmohan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004 (2) RCR(Crl.) 89 and Sham Lal''s case (supra), I am of the opinion that the Courts below have wrongly declined bail to the petitioner. Undisputedly, the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the alleged occurrence. He is in custody since 7.9.2004. There is no material on record which indicates that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he will go in association with the known criminals or his release on bail will expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or would defeat the ends of justice. Though the bail can be denied to a juvenile on the ground that it will defeat the ends of justice, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, keeping in view the age of the petitioner and other factors on the record, in my opinion, denial of bail to the petitioner on the ground that he has committed heinous crime or his release would defeat the ends of justice is not just and reasonable. Therefore, the orders dated 18.1.2006 and 2.3.2006, passed by the Courts below, are set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Board, Hisar.

Petition is allowed accordingly.