Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State and perused the affidavit and other documents filed by the parties.
Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 03.07.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi in Criminal Appal No. 26 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2013, under sections 302, 364 IPC and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, police station Raksa, district Jhansi and the judgment and order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jhansi in Case No. 11 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2013 (State vs Neelu alias Neeraj Pal).
It was alleged that the brother of the complainant Raju aged about 35 years was at his house. On 01.10.2013 at about 11.00 p.m. Neelu alias Neeraj Pal came to the house of Raju and took him and he was last seen by Hari Mohan and Nathu Ram going on the way. He met his brother Ravi Pal. All of them went together. The brother of the complainant Raju used to often go to the house of Neelu alias Neeraj Pal. Neelu had bad intention towards the ladies of the house for which he was rebuked. Due to this enmity Neelu alias Neeraj Pal and Ravi Pal took Raju to the new plotting of Pappu Sahu and severed the head of his body and murdered him. The complainant tried to search his brother but ultimately he found his brother in the morning. Hence report was lodged.
The accused Neelu alias Neeraj Pal was declared a juvenile vide order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board. There is nothing on record to show that this order has not attained finality. The bail application was moved on behalf of the juvenile Neelu alias Neeraj Pal, which was rejected by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jhansi on 15.04.2014.
Feeling aggrieved Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2014 was preferred, which was also dismissed on 03.07.2014.
The appellate court held that there is every likelihood of the delinquent juvenile after release on bail would associate with criminals and expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that there is absolutely no evidence to show that if the juvenile refused to be release on bail, his release 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. He also submitted that the severity of offence committed cannot be a ground to refuse bail to a juvenile. Both the learned courts in a cryptic manner have refused to grant bail to the revisionist. He has further submitted that the orders passed by the courts below are based on surmises and conjectures and are not in accordance with law.
Learned AGA supported the order impugned has argued that the court has given specific finding that if the juvenile is released on bail, he may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 being a beneficiary and social reforms oriented legislation, should be given full effect by all concerned, whenever matters relating to juvenile come for consideration before them. The bail application of a delinquent juvenile is to be considered with the provisions contained under Section 12 of the J.J. Act.
Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act reads as under:
"12. 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- 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, made 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."
Thus, it is clear that once a person is declared to be a juvenile in conflict with law, then Section 12 of the Act would govern the question of grant of bail and the custody of juvenile and it will not be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, if the offence is serious, the punishment is severe then exceptional reason as provided above there is no obstacle or hindrance by the legislature to refuse bail to a delinquent juvenile and each case has to be judged independently upon its facts.
In the present case, the reasons given by the Juvenile Justice Board for refusing the bail is that there is every possibility of the juvenile coming into the contact with hardcore criminals, the same ground has been relied upon in appeal, but I do not think this is cogent reason for conclusion. Since the report of the Probation Officer does not substantiate the conclusion drawn by the appellate court. The trial court and the appellate court, both have concluded on the basis presumptions. Nothing adverse has been noted in the report about the family and previous conduct and character of the revisionist.
In view of the above discussions, in my opinion that the impugned order dated 03.07.2014 passed by the appellate court and the order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board are not sustainable in law and both the courts below have committed jurisdictional error and illegality in passing the orders. Consequently, the revision is allowed and the aforesaid impugned orders are set aside.
It is directed that the revisionist shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond by his natural guardian with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jhansi with the stipulation that on all the subsequent dates of hearing, he shall produce the delinquent juvenile before the said Board during pendency of the inquiry and his guardian shall keep proper control over the delinquent juvenile and keep him away from the company of known criminals.
In case of default, the Board would be competent to cancel the bail of the revisionist after giving an opportunity of hearing to him.
Order Date :- 31.7.2014 Sazia