Judgement This revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (herein after referred to as the 'JJ Act') has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 16.05.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Raebareli in Appeal under Section 52 of the JJ Act No. 12 of 2014 whereby the appeal was dismissed after affirming the order passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli dated 14.03.2014 declining the bail to the revisionist Sunil Kumar Yadav, a juvenile in conflict with law, relating to Case Crime No. 791 of 2013, under Section 364, 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Dalmau, District- Raebareli.
I have heard Shri Avdhesh Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. None appeared for private opposite party no. 2 inspite of sufficient service.
The brief facts for deciding this Revision Petition are that the bail application moved by the revisionist has been rejected by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli on the ground that financial status of revisionist is weak. In case he is released on bail, he will come in contact with known criminal,the co-accused Pappu @ Ram Kishore whose bail has been granted by this Court vide order dated 16.04.2014 and expose him to moral, physical and Psychological danger. The possibility can not ruled out that after release he may come in contact with other criminals. The revisional Court endorsing the findings of Principal Judge of Juvenile Justice Board, dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment and order.
Admittedly the revisionist is a juvenile in conflict with law and presently languishing in Jail and is facing trial under Section 364, 302, 201 I.P.C. The case is based on circumstances evidence. The revisionist is not named in the first information report.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is detained in this case since 31.01.2014. He has no criminal antecedents. The report of Probation Officer is not adverse and co-accused Pappu @ Ram Kishore has been released on bail vide order dated 16.04.2014. The copy of bail order has been annexed as Annexure no. 3 to the memo of revision. It is also submitted that the grounds on which bail has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the learned Sessions Judge, Raebareli are not sustainable because there is no material to form an opinion or believe that after release, the accused will come into association of known criminals. The prosecution also failed to bring such material on record of this Court too. It is also submitted that the gravity of the offence is not a ground to reject the bail. The co-accused Pappu @ Ram Kishore, who is major and involved in this case if granted bail on merit atleast a juvenile may also be entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the co-accused could not termed as known criminal. Moreover there is nothing adverse against the revisionist in the report of Probation Officer.
Learned AGA supported the impugned order and stated that basis on which opinion has been formed by Principal Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge for rejecting the bail is available on record. Learned AGA while opposing the bail prayer of the revisionist pointed out not that one of the co-accused has been released on bail and in case, the revisionist is also released on bail, the possibility of this fact cannot be ruled out that the revisionist shall come in contact with co-accused. Therefore, it could not be said that the orders impugned have no basis.
No material as alleged to be available on record of courts below has been filed along with counter affidavit nor the details of which has been given therein. Of course, If learned Magistrate has reason to believe that circumstances as mentioned in the impugned orders exist, the prayer for bail to a juvenile cannot be granted. But if the same is based on presumptions and conjectures, the order refusing bail could not be allowed to sustain.
Provision to bail of juvenile are given in section 12 of JJ Act which 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 or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person 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, 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."
In Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P.,(2013) 11 SCC 193, at page 212 the Honble Supreme Court with regard to bail to juvenile observed as under :
"39 The provision dealing with bail (Section 12 of the Act) places the burden for denying bail on the prosecution. Ordinarily, a juvenile in conflict with law shall be released on bail, but he may 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."
In accordance with section 12 of JJ Act the ground which may be considered while declining the bail to juvenile in conflict with law are as follows:-
1. If there appears reasonable grounds for believing that release is likely to bring the juvenile in conflict with law into association with any known criminal, or
2. If there appears reasonable grounds for believing that release is likely to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or
3. If there appears reasonable grounds for believing that release of juvenile in conflict with law would defeat the ends of justice.
In view of above and provisions contained in section 12 of JJ Act, grant of bail is rule but declining the bail to juvenile is an exception. The exceptions mentioned herein above could only be given effect when there are reasonable ground to believe exist. A reasonable belief said to exist if material or facts and circumstances justify the satisfaction of authority that release is likely to bring the juvenile in conflict with law into association with any known criminal or likely to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or would defeat the ends of justice.
The term "known Criminal" has not been defined in JJ Act or Rules framed thereunder. It is well settled rule of interpretation that in the absence of any statutory definition of any term used in any particular statute the same must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood in context of such statute as held in Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 721, (SCC pp. 726-27, para 11) "It is well-settled principle of interpretation of statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning"
Similar view has been propounded in Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd. (1996) 10 SCC 413, Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. v. Union of India (1997)2 SCC 664 and U. Suvetha v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 757.
Thus, the term "known criminal" used in section 12 of JJ Act must assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include a person who habitually commits crime, or person with bad criminal antecedents or criminal history, gangsters, hardened criminals, those who repeatedly commits a particular type of crime etc. As such a co-accused involved in the crime with juvenile has no criminal history or criminal antecedents to his credit cannot be termed as "known criminal".
In view of the above the heinousness or gravity of offence and the age in which the juvenile commits crime are not the grounds for declining the bail to a juvenile in conflict with law. The release of a co-accused ( not Juvenile) from Jail is also not a ground for declining the bail to the other juvenile.
Nothing has been brought on record or referred to in counter affidavit as to how the revisionist after release will likely to expose to moral, physical or psychological danger or would defeat the ends of justice. Mere use of the phraseology in section for declining the prayer to release on bail to juvenile in conflict with law without any reasonable belief as discussed herein above would amount to illegal exercise of jurisdiction by the authority.
Having considered all the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the discussions made herein above I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders of Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board and learned Sessions Judge are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned orders dated 14.03.2014 and 16.05.2014 are set aside. The revisionist Sunil Kumar Yadav be released on bail on executing a personal bond of guardian or person or institution in whose favour placement of the juvenile is ordered by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board with two sureties in the like amount to his satisfaction . He shall also pass specific order while releasing the revisionist on bail for his placement under the supervision of Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or any fit person as he thinks fit.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad for compliance of the order. Office to ensure compliance. The revision is accordingly disposed of finally.
Order Dated: 27.11.2014 R.K.P.