The gravity of the offence does not justify denying bail to a juvenile; specific findings must be recorded to demonstrate risk of moral danger or association with known criminals.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 4.12.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the appeal filed by the child in conflict with law (CCL) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police received information that the dead body of a female was lying in an approach road rain shelter. The police went to the spot and found the dead body of a woman. A dupatta was tied around her neck. The police conducted the investigation and found that the CCL and other co-accused had stopped near the approach road rain shelter. The deceased also came to the rain shelter. The CCL and other co-accused had raped the deceased. Her head hit something in the rain shelter. They attempted to take the woman to the jungle but her dupatta got entangled in her neck and she died on the spot. CCL and co- accused found Rs.3560/- in her purse and distributed the money amongst themselves. The police arrested CCL and the co- accused. The police effected the recovery of various articles at the instance of the CCL and the co-accused. As per the report of the postmortem examination, Satya Devi had died due to ligature strangulation. The petitioner was found to be born on 21.12.2007. He had joined other accused in the gang rape and murder of the deceased. The charge sheet was filed before the Court.

3. The CCL filed an application seeking bail. Learned Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board held that the gravity of the offence shows the circumstances in which the offence was committed. The parents of the CCL had left him in the company of the co-accused, and in case of his release on protective custody, he would be exposed to the criminals as had occurred in the past. Hence the bail petition was dismissed.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, JJB, the CCL filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge. It was held that in case of release of the CCL, he would be exposed to moral danger and come in contact with the known criminals. There was no infirmity in the order passed by learned Principal Magistrate, JJB. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved from the orders passed by the learned Courts below, the CCL has filed the present revision asserting that the learned Courts below did not appreciate the law in its proper perspective. The FIR was lodged on false and bogus facts. The CCL was not required in the offence. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. No recovery is to be effected from the CCL and a false case was planted against the CCL by the police. The provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act were not properly appreciated. There was no reasonable ground to believe that CCL was likely to come into association with any known criminal or he would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. Learned Courts below erred in not releasing the CCL on bail. CCL would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.

6. I have heard M/s Servedaman Rathore and Vipin Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

7. Mr Sarvedaman Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Courts below erred in dismissing the bail petition. There was no evidence that the CCL was likely to come into contact with known criminals or he would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger in case of release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the CCL be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of Manoj Vs. State of Karnataka, MANU/KA/1722/2023, X Vs. State of U.P. and another MANU/UP/1378/2023 and XY