2006 Supreme(Raj) 160
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : H.R. Panwar
Mitha Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 8 of 2006
Decided On : 01/17/2006
Mr. G.R. Punia, for the Petitioner.
Mr. J.P.S. Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor, for the State.
The main legal point established is that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 mandates the release of a delinquent juvenile on bail, except if there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would bring the juvenile into association with known criminals or expose them to danger.
Headnote:
Bail - Juvenile Justice - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Section 12
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a juvenile, sought bail after being accused of offenses under Sections 454 and 302 IPC. The Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court had declined bail based on concerns of the petitioner's potential association with known criminals and exposure to danger.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of Section 12 of the Act mandate the release of a delinquent juvenile on bail, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would bring the juvenile into association with known criminals or expose them to danger.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner, as a juvenile delinquent, should be granted bail under Section 12 of the Act despite the nature of the alleged offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 12 of the Act mandates the release of a delinquent juvenile on bail, except if there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would bring the juvenile into association with known criminals or expose them to danger.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court, and directed the release of the petitioner on bail.
H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, “the Act” hereinafter”), on behalf of the petitioner, the order dated 112.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur (for short, “the Appellate Court” hereafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 194/2005 has been challenged, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 112.2005 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Udaipur (for short, “the Juvenile Justice Board” hereinafter) passed in Criminal Case No. 381/2005.
2. The facts of the case, relevant and necessary for decision of this revision petition are that complainant T.N. Narayanan lodged an FIR on 012.2005 with Police Station, Hiranmagri, Udaipur to the effect that when he came to home at 1:15 PM and called the bell, his wife did not response. He opened the door and when entered the house, he saw the goods scattered in the bed-room and his wife was found lying in an unconscious state having her hands and legs tied with cloth. He informed his neighbourer Mathur and called the doctor on telephone. Dr. Goyal came and checked his wife. The police was informed telephonically. The police came and his wife was taken to the hospital where the doctors declared her dead. After investigation the police detained the petitioner and produced him before the Court. An application under Section 12 of the Act was filed on behalf of the petitioner for releasing him on bail on the ground that the petitioner is a minor of 14 years and his name does not find mention in the FIR. The Juvenile Justice Board, vide order dated 112.2005 dismissed the bail application on the ground that though the Probation Officer has reported that it is petitioners first offence, there is no information regarding his criminal antecedents and his conduct and behaviour are good but looking to the fact that the petitioner has left the study, his father is collecting cow-dung and doing labour work, mother does domestic works of cleaning the house and utensils etc. and his sister is also not going to school, the chances of petitioners coming in the contact of known criminals cannot be ruled out.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, an appeal was filed which has been
dismissed by the Appellate Court vide impugned order. Hence, this revision. Sub-clause (k) of Section 2 of the Act deflines "Juvenile" or "child", which reads as under:-"Section 2(k).
-"Juvenile" or "child" means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age." Section 12 of the Act reads as under:-“Section 12. Bail to 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 association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under Sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under Sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.”
4. From the perusal of Section 12 of the Act, it is clear that a delinquent juvenile ordinarily has to b