BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned additional Sessions Judge dated 02. 03. 2006, whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 10. 02. 2006 rejecting the petitioner s bail application, has been dismissed.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the impugned judgment and in particular paragraph 4 thereof to indicate that it is an admitted position that there is nothing adverse qua the petitioner in the Social investigation Report. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that despite the Social Investigation Report being entirely in favour of the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and refused to grant him bail on the ground that if the petitioner were to be granted bail, it would defeat the ends of justice. The exact words used by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal are as under:-"6. After going through the above referred two judgments and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the matter, I feel that if appellant is released at this stage when trial is yet to be started, it would defeat the end of justice because the witness are yet to be examined. The case against the other persons are also pending in the other courts. The release of the appellant at this stage may effect the trial in the main case also. In these circumstances of the matter, I do not found it a fit case to grant bail to the appellant at this stage. The Juvenile may be granted bail at the appropriate stage. This appeal can not be accepted. Accordingly it is dismissed. "

( 3 ) REFERRING to the above extract, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has indicated that the ends of justice would be defeated because (a) the trial is yet to commence; (b) the case against the co-accused, who are not juveniles, are also pending in other courts; (c) the release of the petitioner may affect the trial in the main case also. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that these are not considerations which could be taken into account for coming to a conclusion that the release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice. He referred to the following decisions in support of his contentions:- i) Mohd. Feroz @ Bhola v. State: 2005 [3] JCC 1313; ii) Shashi Kumar Saini v. The State: 2005 VI AD Delhi 200; iii) Master Niku Chaubey v. State: 2006 [2] JCC 720; iv) Arvind v. State: 1999 (2) JCC Delhi 311; and v) Master Abhishek (Minor) v. State: 2005 VI AD Delhi 18.

( 4 ) MR Sharma, who appeared for the State, referred to the provisions of section 2 (q) and 2 (o) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) to indicate that the petitioner, instead of being released on bail, be placed either in an observation home or in a place of safety. He supported the view taken by the courts below and submitted that the role of the petitioner was of catching hold of the deceased, who ultimately lost his life because of an alleged attack by the co-accused. He also submitted that the word ?shall? used in Section 12 of the said Act does not indicate that in every case, the juvenile has to be granted bail. The courts have to exercise judicial discretion while granting or refusing bail. Section 12 of the said Act reads as under:-?12. Bail of juvenile.-- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non- bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into

Click Here to Read the rest of this document