The Act mandates the release of juveniles on bail, except in specific circumstances, and the grounds for denying bail should be based on objective assessment and supported by evidence.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This petition has been filed by juvenile Manmohan Singh, who is now confined in Observation Home, Shimla Puri Ludhiana for setting aside the order dated 26.9.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Court, Ludhiana vide which the application of the petitioner for release him on bail was declined and the order dated 11.10.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which appeal against the said order was dismissed. The Courts below declined the bail to the petitioner on the ground that there is apprehension that the release of the petitioner on bail would expose him to moral and physical danger as no elderly person is available to look after him.

2. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along his brother, armed with Kirpans, Kulwant Singh, armed with gandasi and his mother Gurjit Kaur, armed with thapi, alleged to have caused injuries to deceased Kuldeep Singh son of Tarlok Singh.

3. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of commission of the alleged crime, the petitioner was 15 years 4 months old. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that undisputedly, the petitioner is a juvenile and he was so declared by the Juvenile Court, however, he has been denied the benefit of bail by the Courts below in spite of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the two grounds. Firstly, that if the petitioner is released on bail it would expose him to moral and physical danger having no elderly person to look after him. Secondly, the petitioner at the time of occurrence was armed with Kispan and had caused injuries to the deceased as a result of which he died. In these circumstances, the release of the petitioner on bail would likely to harm the trial as he may pass coercion upon the prosecution witnesses.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that both the aforesaid reasons recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are unsustainable and on the basis of the same, the prayer of the petitioner for release him on bail cannot be rejected as it is mandatory for the Juvenile Court to release the juvenile on bail notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force. She further submitted that under Section 12 of the Act, bail can be declined to a juvenile if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. She further submitted that apprehension of the Courts below to the effect that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would expose himself to moral and physical danger having no elderly person to look after him, is wholly without any basis as the grandfather and maternal uncle of the petitioner are always available at home to look after him. In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P., 2003(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 559. She further submitted that merely because the petitioner is alleged to have caused injuries to the deceased by Kirpan the benefit of concession of bail, as provided in the aforesaid Section, cannot be denied. If Such interpretation is accepted then the very purpose of enacting Section 12 of the Act will be defeated.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner was rightly declined the bail keeping in view the nature of crime he has committed and the fact that in case of his release, there is apprehension of his being exposed to moral and physical danger having no elderly person to look after him.

6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for th