Back
2007 Supreme(Chh) 153
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.
SANDEEP - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Respondents
Criminal Revision 47 Of 2007
Decided On : February 21, 2007
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for 'reasonable grounds for believing' as per Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act and the necessity for evidence to substantiate the refusal of release, along with the need for reasoned judicial orders.
Headnote:
Juvenile Justice - Bail Application - Sections 399, 402/34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act - [Sections 399, 402/34 of the IPC, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, emphasizing the requirement of 'reasonable grounds for believing' and the need for substantial probable cause for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to put him under the conditions mentioned in the Act. The court also highlighted the necessity for evidence to substantiate the refusal of release and the requirement for reasoned judicial orders.
Fact of the Case:
The revision was filed against the order dismissing the bail application of a juvenile in a case related to offenses under Sections 399 and 402/34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The Sessions Judge rejected the appeal, stating that the release of the juvenile would bring him into association with known criminals and defeat the ends of justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sessions Judge did not provide reasonable grounds for not releasing the juvenile on bail and emphasized the need for evidence to substantiate the refusal of release. It held that the absence of recorded reasons for not releasing the juvenile rendered the decision unreasonable.
Issues: The issues revolved around the refusal of bail to the juvenile based on the grounds of association with known criminals and the defeat of the ends of justice, without reasonable grounds or evidence to support such refusal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of 'reasonable grounds for believing' as per Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act and the need for evidence to substantiate the refusal of release. It also highlighted the necessity for reasoned judicial orders.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The bail application of the juvenile was allowed, and it was directed that the juvenile be released on bail upon furnishing a bond.
( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 22. 12. 2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, ambikapur, District-Surguja (CG) in Criminal Appeal No. 200/2006. The aforesaid criminal appeal was filed against the order dated 02. 11. 2006 passed by the Juvenile justice Board, Ambikapur by which an application for grant of bail to the applicant/juvenile was dismissed by the aforesaid Court.
( 2 ) AGAINST the aforesaid order dated 02. 11. 2006, an earlier revision vide No. 699/2006 was filed on behalf of the applicant, which was heard and allowed by the order dated 28. 11. 2006 by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Sessions Court for passing an appropriate order in accordance with law. It is after this remand order, the Sessions Judge again took up this matter for hearing and passed this order dated 22. 12. 2006 against which this criminal revision has been filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2000.
( 3 ) THIS matter relates to Crime No. 78/2005, registered at police Station-Ramkola, District-Surguja (CG), for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402/34 of the i. P. C. and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
( 4 ) IT is stated in the impugned order and also clear from the order-sheets that this juvenile has absconded from the samprekshan on 27. 1. 2006 and thereafter he has surrendered after about 10 months on 2. 11. 2006 and an application for releasing him on bail was filed, which was dismissed by the Board holding that looking to the conduct of the juvenile and also looking to the allegations in the charge-sheet, his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, therefore, the release was not proper. Almost similar view has been taken by the Sessions Judge while rejecting the appeal by order dated 22. 12. 2006. The Sessions Judge has also recorded the finding that in the facts and circumstances, if the juvenile is released on bail, it shall defeat the ends of justice and it will bring him into association with any known criminal. Though this view has been taken by the Sessions Judge in the criminal appeal filed by the juvenile but the Sessions Judge has not recorded any reason on the basis of which such a view has been taken.
( 5 ) A learned Single Judge of the allahabad High Court held in the matter of lavkush Chamar @ Lavkushseth v. State of u. P. that release of juvenile, no doubt can be refused if anyone of the 3 circumstances referred to in Section 12 of the said Act exist, but the existence of such circumstances should not be merely a guess work of the court, but it should be based on some evidence may be police report, or the report of the probation officer or any other such evidence, which can substantiate the refusal of release. On the similar logic, Rajasthan high Court in the matter of Murari v. State of Rajasthan, released a juvenile holding that no material is there on record to support that the conditions referred to in Section 12 of the said Act, which disentitle the accused applicant from granting bail, was available against the accused (Para 7 ). Allahabad High Court also held in the matter of Deepak Kumar v. State of U. P. that it is not that the mere quoting of few lines from this Act, the bail should be refused as the impugned order of the said case does not show any such ground. The High Court further held that the impugned order was passed in utter disregard of Section 12 of the said Act and it nowhere shows that release would defeat the ends of justice and more over there is also nothing to show as to how the release would defeat the ends of justice.
( 6 ) I have also considered this point as to what is meant by using phraseology "reasonable grounds for believing" in sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 in the matter of Chhotu Babu v. State of chhattisgarh. I have quoted vide Para-13 in the aforesaid matter that the proba
