Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.
Vikki Tiwari - Appellants
Vs.
State of C.G. - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 124 of 2015
Decided On: 11.03.2015
Indian Penal Code - Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 439 - Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 - Section 53 – Offence of Murder – Injury - Assailing the correctness and validity of the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the order passed in appeal by the appellate Court, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the rejection of application for grant of bail is wholly illegal. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in case of alleged commission of offence by a Juvenile ordinarily, bail has to be granted and the statutory mandate not to release will operate only when there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice - Referring to the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Juvenile Justice Board rejected the application without there being any material or circumstances justifying conclusion that release would defeat the ends of justice. Further submission is that none of the grounds justifying rejection of the application were made out yet by taking into consideration extraneous aspect with regard to the nature and gravity of offence – Held, In the case of High Court of has considered the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act and held that the words notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would indicate that the considerations which are germane for granting or refusing bail to persons who are not juvenile delinquent shall not come into play for granting or refusing bail to them. It was also held that the words "ends of justice" should be confined to those facts which show that the grant of bail itself is likely to result in injustice. The Juvenile delinquent may appear to be guilty prima facie but he is especially protected by Act and is considered for grant of bail. From the aforesaid decisions and the law propounded by Their Lordships in various cases, it is clear that ordinarily bail is required to be granted to a Juvenile in view of the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act. It is only when the Court finds that the grounds therein are made out that the Court shall reject the application. If the order impugned in the present case is scrutinized in the light of the principles as discussed above, it would at once appear that the impugned orders are passed on extraneous considerations - Board while rejecting the application, stating that the release would defeat the ends of justice, appears to be guided by only one circumstance i.e. the gravity of offence, the appellate authority also relies upon the same circumstance but to come to the conclusion that the release would bring the applicant into association with criminals and expose him to psychological danger Court have perused the records of the case and there does not appear to be any other material or circumstance placed on record to come to the conclusion that release of the applicant would either bring him in association with known criminal or expose him to psychological danger or would otherwise defeat the ends of justice. In the absence of any such ground appearing, the applicant is entitled to grant of bail - Application Allowed
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. This criminal revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against order dated 04-02-2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2015 whereby order dated 21-01-15 passed by the Chief Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajnandgaon rejecting petitioner's application under Section 12 of the Act has been confirmed.
3. Assailing the correctness and validity of the order dated 21-01-2015 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the order passed in appeal by the appellate Court, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the rejection of application for grant of bail is wholly illegal. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, in case of alleged commission of offence by a Juvenile, ordinarily, bail has to be granted and the statutory mandate not to release will operate only when there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Referring to the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Juvenile Justice Board rejected the application without there being any material or circumstances justifying conclusion that release would defeat the ends of justice. Further submission is that none of the grounds justifying rejection of the application were made out yet by taking into consideration extraneous aspect with regard to the nature and gravity of offence, which is ordinarily relevant while considering applications for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., application of the applicant has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board in the present case. In order to buttress his submission, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision of this Court in Bharat @ Bhrat & Another v. State of C.G. 2006(1) CGLJ 72, Akhilesh Kumar v. State of C.G. 2006(1) CGLJ 305 and Rahul Mishra v. State of M.P. 2001 Cr.LJ. 214.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that while rejecting applicant's application under Section 12 of the Act, no illegality has been committed by the Juvenile Justice Board, as the Court below has considered only relevant considerations in order to form an opinion against release of the applicant that such release would defeat the ends of justice. Further submission of learned State counsel is that the learned lower appellate Court has also considered this aspect and taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, has recorded that release of the applicant would bring him into association with any known criminal and also expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Learned State counsel argued that the circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have been committed itself show that the Juvenile was not living in a healthy company, and therefore, if he is allowed to be released, it would not be in his interest for the reasons stated in the order passed by the Board as well as by the appellate Court.
5. The Board vide its order dated 21-01-2015 rejected application of the applicant by recording that in the event of release, the ends of justice are likely to be defeated. No specific reason has been assigned by the Board to come to the said conclusion. However, from a reading of the order and the contents thereof preceding such a conclusion, it is revealed that the Court has taken into consideration that the applicant is charged of commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. causing death of Head Master of a primary school due to previous enmity by assaulting with a knife. The order further records that considering the na
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
