Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.

1. Petitioner Bittu, a juvenile in conflict with law (hereinafter called the juvenile) presently in protective custody in Observation Home, Ambala, in FIR No. 368 dated 3.7.2013 under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 and 120-B IPC as also under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 of Police Station, Model Town, Panipat, by way of this revision petition has challenged order (Annexure P-2) dated 31.7.2013 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Panipat vide which his bail application was rejected and order (Annexure P-3) dated 14.8.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide which his appeal filed against order (Annexure P-2) was dismissed. In this revision petition, it is claimed that neither the appellate court nor the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Panipat took into consideration the relevant legal material and rather taking the entire matter in a different tenor and tone than the one permitted by law, dismissed his prayer for bail.

2. As per the prosecution case, the juvenile had taken away the victim by enticing her away and had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.

3. This revision petition has been strongly resisted by the respondent-State. Asserting validity and legality of the orders (Annexures P-2 and P-3) passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Panipat and the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat respectively, dismissal of the revision petition has been prayed.

4. Hearing has been provided to learned counsel for the parties while going through the paper book.

5. At the outset, it may be mentioned that somewhat different terminology has been used in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, the Juvenile Act). So is the position with regard to the Haryana Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2009 (for short, the Haryana Rules) which were notified in Haryana Government Gazette on 14.9.2009. For the term 'accused' used in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the term juvenile is used in the Juvenile Act and the Rules thereunder is 'juvenile in conflict with law'. Similarly, for the term 'trial' in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the word 'inquiry' has been used in the Juvenile Act and the Rules thereunder.

6. If we go by the statutory mandate, bail in case of a juvenile in conflict with law, is a general rule whereas refusal is an exception. Such refusal has also to be in consonance with the grounds mentioned in Section 12 of the Juvenile Act, which provision for ready reference, is reproduced as below:

"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 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 incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can 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."

7. Perusal of this provision reveals that it incorporates a non-obstinate clause which means that irrespective of anything contained in the Code of Criminal Pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document