Point of Law:
It is settled law that a Court of Law would interpret a provision which would help sustaining the validity of law by applying the doctrine of reasonable construction rather than making it vulnerable and unconstitutional by adopting rule of 'litera legis'. Connecting the provision of limitation in Section 468 of the Code with issuing of process or taking of cognizance by the Court may make it unsustainable and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This revision is directed against an order of Ms. Renu Rao, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hapur dated 29.04.2019 dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2019, under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') preferred by the revisionist from an order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Hapur rejecting the revisionist's bail plea in Case Crime No. 283 of 2018, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.

3. The FIR giving rise to the crime briefly says that the informant's son was weighing goods at his shop in the evening hours at 8.00 o'clock when Shiva, Kamal, Anand and Golu (revisionist) all sons of Suraj alighted there and battered Vishal. Amongst them Shiva assaulted Vishal with a knife blow to his abdomen, injuring him. The report shows that the victim had been rushed to the hospital for medical aid. The bail plea of the revisionists that came up before the Juvenile Justice Board was rejected going by the Social Investigation Report which shows that there was lack of discipline and control in the family. The revisionist preferred an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge which too has been dismissed by the order impugned.

4. Aggrieved, this revision has been filed.

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that of all the four offenders, the revisionist is the only one who is a juvenile. The three adult offenders have been admitted to bail. He has called attention of the Court to the bail order dated 23.07.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hapur in Bail Application No. 833 of 2018, enlarging Shiva on bail. Likewise, the Court has also been taken through the bail order dated 14.08.2018, also passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hapur in Bail Application No. 1010 of 2018 granting bail to Kamal and Anand. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that Shiva is not only an adult offender but the role of assault by knife has also been assigned to him. He submits that once the accused, who has been assigned the role of assault, is granted bail and all the other accused, who are adults are enlarged on bail, there is no justification to detain a juvenile against whom the allegation is one of marginal participation. He submits that the orders impugned are bad inasmuch as the Courts below have proceeded on the reasoning that the revisionist is dis-entitled to bail because the atmosphere in his family is not conducive to well-being of the minor and may, in the event of his release on bail, bring him into association with some known criminal. He submits that the approach of the Courts below is patently flawed and manifestly illegal and that the Court's below have declined bail on irrelevant considerations.

6. This Court has keenly considered the matter. In a case where on merits an accused is entitled to bail, it would indeed be quite irrelevant to judge his case on the basis of the dis-entitling categories under the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, because he happens to be a juvenile. If this construction were to be adopted, a case where an adult offender would be entitled to bail, a juvenile would still be subjected to incarceration. That does not merely appear to be the legislative intent. The Act is a beneficial legislation, designed to protect the interests of a juvenile. The provisions of Section 12 engraft a universal rule of bail to all juveniles, unless their case falls under three categories enumerated in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. This provision is designed to come to the rescue of a juvenile, where, if he were an adult, he would not be entitled to bail. It is certainly not framed to work in a way that a juvenile who, if an adult would be entitled to bail but being a juvenile have his liberty hedged in and circumscribed by the dis-entitling conditions menti