ORDER
U.S. Tripathi, J.
1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 31-8-2000 passed by Sessions Judge, Agra in Juvenile Appeal No. 114/2000 dismissing the appeal arising out of order dated 25-8-2000 passed by Juvenile Judge, Agra in Crime No. 274/2000 under Sections 18/20, N.D.P.S. Act rejecting the bail of the applicant.
2. The applicant was apprehended by Police of P. S. Mantola, District Agra under Sections 18/20, N.D.P.S. Act. He was produced before Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, who found him juvenile and transferred the case before Juvenile Judge. The applicant moved application for releasing him on bail on the ground that he was juvenile and under Section 18 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 he ought to be released on bail.
3. The learned Juvenile Judge held that the applicant is juvenile. On the point of bail he held that the applicant was wanted in as many as 10 cases under various Sections of I.P.C., Goonda Act, and 110, Cr.P.C. and thereafter he was apprehended under N.D.P.S. Act and therefore, he was likely to bring into association with any known criminals and the ends of justice would be defeated. With these observations he rejected the bail application.
4. Aggrieved with the said order, the applicant filed appeal before the Sessions Judge, Agra under Section 37 of Juvenile Justice Act. The appellate Court found that during last three years the applicant had been challened in as many as 10 criminal cases including those under Sections 294, 307, I.P.C. and 3 Goonda Act. Now he has been arrested under Section 18 of N.D.P.S. Act. This fact by itself goes to show that applicant is of hardened criminal nature and his release would expose to moral danger and would expose to him to other hardened criminals. Thus, the ends of justice would be defeated, if he is released on bail. With these observations, he dismissed the appeal.
5. Aggrieved by above order, the applicant filed this revision under Section 38, Juvenile Justice Act.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the order of the Juvenile Judge as well as appellate Court.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the release of applicant on bail was rejected on the ground that it was likely to bring him into association with any known criminals but the criminals were not known and therefore, bail was wrongly refused. He has also placed reliance on a single Judge decision of this Court Rais v. State of U.P. (1991) 28 ACC 484. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. contended that the applicant is a hardened criminal and there is finding that his release would expose him to moral danger and would also defeat the ends of justice and therefore, his bail was rightly refused.
8. Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act reads as under :-
Bail and custody of juveniles. (1) When any person accused of a bailable or nonbailable offence and apparently a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Juvenile Court, 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 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 in an observation home or a place of safety in the prescribed manner (but not in a police station or jail) until he can be brought before a Juvenile Court.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under Sub-section (1) by the Juvenile Court 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.
9. It has not been disputed that the applicant is a juvenile as defined in the Juvenile Justice Act. The restrictions imposed on release of applicant on bail are as under :-
(1) If there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal; or
(2) expose him to moral danger, or
(3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
10. In the case of Rais v. State of U.P. (supra) the release of petitioner on bail was refused only on the ground that he may come into the contact with association of any known criminals. The lower Courts have not brought the case of petitioner within Clauses 2 and 3 mentioned above. It was held that there was no proper evidence before the two Courts below. Registration of case under Sections 399, 402, I.P.C. on the same date of recovery against the petitioner was not sufficient for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was likely to come into contact with association of any known criminals. The word 'Known' has not been used by the Parliament in the Section without purpose. By use of word 'known' the Parliament requires that the Court must know full particulars of the criminals with which the delinquent is likely to come into association. There is no such evidence or finding. It appears that the procedure under Section 19 of the Act was also not followed. The parent or guardian or Probation Officer was not informed about the juvenile's arrest. Considering the circumstances of the case it was found that appellate Court as well as, Juvenile Magistrate had erred in not releasing the juvenile on bail.
11. In the said case, the refusal of a juvenile on bail was only on the ground that if he would be released, it would likely to bring him into association with any known criminals. There was evidence to show as to who was the criminal or criminals in whose association Juvenile may come after release. The three conditions laid down in Section 18 are independent and according to wording of Section 18 the bail may be refused if any of the conditions referred to above exist.
12. It is true that in the instant case there is no mention of the criminal or criminals in whose association or contact the applicant may come if he is released on bail, but the Juvenile Court as well as the appellate Court had also held that the release of applicant on bail would expose him to moral danger and would also defeat the ends of justice. Juvenile Court has also mentioned the cases, which are 10 in number, in which he is involved. List of above cases shows that the applicant was involved in cases under Section 3 of Goonda Act, 307, I.P.C. 323, 353, I.P.C, 110, Cr.P.C and 294, I.P.C. The criminal antecedents of the applicant clearly indicate that his release would expose him to morl danger. It also shows that he is hardened criminal and if released on bail would again indulge in various nature of cases and therefore, the ends of justice would be defeated. Therefore, in this case, conditions Nos. 2 and 3 exist and therefore, the case law relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable.
13. Thus, it is clear that the applicant has criminal history and his tendency is to indulge in crime and if released on bail would expose him to moral danger and would defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, he was rightly refused bail. The revision has no force and is, accordingly, dismissed and the Juvenile Court is directed to follow the procedure given in Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.