IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of any material collected by police to show that release of juvenile on bail will bring him into association of known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or it would defeat ends of justice juvenile was liable to be released on bail.

ORDER

R.L. Jhanwar, J.— This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 16th March, 2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Appeal No.17/2010 affirming the order dated 24.2.10 passed in Criminal Case No. 61/10 whereby the Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the application for grant of bail filed by the juvenile.

2.. The older is impugned on the ground that Court below has not considered the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.2.2010 when the complainant Raju Agrawal, who was on way to Tilda-Nevra by motorcycle, parked his motorcycle near Dabeli shop and started to have Dabeli. Taking this advantage, the applicant and other co-accused snatched the bag attached to the vehicle and ran away by his motor cycle. The complainant immediately chased and caught hold of them and took them with bag to his motorcycle, one of the companions of the applicant pushed the complainant, snatched the bag containing Rs.2,25,000 and mobile charger and fled from the spot along with the applicant. Report of the incident was lodged in P.S. Pandri. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is a juvenile and from his possession, no stolen money is found. The recovery from the applicant is only mobile charger. He further argued that at the time of incident, he is only 17 years of age and he should have been granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board as also by the lower appellate Court taking into consideration the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short ‘the Act’ but both the Courts below ignored the most material aspect that the applicant is a juvenile and have not followed the mandatory provisions of the Act. On these premises, learned counsel for the applicant urged that the applicant be released on bail while setting aside the impugned judgment.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the revision and submitted that the applicant is involved in committing theft of huge amount, and therefore, looking to his involvement, the applicant should not be released on bail.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the record and impugned order. Provisions of Section 12 of the Act makes it manifest that ordinarily the Board is under obligation to release the juvenile on bail with or without surety, but the juveniles shall not be so released in certain circumstances as the latter part of the Section also uses the word “shall” imposing certain mandatory conditions prohibiting the release of the juvenile by the Board. These conditions are as follows:

(i) If there appears 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 mode of ends jstice.

7. The learned lower appellate Court and that of Juvenile Justice Board while rejecting the bail application of the applicant observed that if the applicant’s release would bring him into association with any known criminal and would defeat the ends of justice, but how the release of the applicant would defeat the ends of justice has not been find out anywhere in the impugned order.

8. After perusal of record and documents, it is evident that admittedly, the applicant is aged 17 years and he is in jail since 23.2.2010 and prosecution has not collected any material to show that there is any likelihood to bring him into association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that it would defeat the ends of justice.

9. The Court below has not considered the grounds for grant of bail to the juvenile under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and thereby committed an illegality .The order is not sustainable in law and accordingly, it is set aside.