ORDER
S.A. Naqvi, J.
1. This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner Girraj said to be a delinquent juvenile has been convicted by impugned order dated 3-3-2006 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No. 95/2006 whereby confirming the order dated 1-3-2006 rejecting bail application of petitioner.
2. Petitioner has been charged for committing offence under Sections 302 and 376 of I.P.C. and he is under custody in connection with crime No. 17/2006 registered by police station Vijaypur tehsil Raghogarh district Guna. ft has been observed by appellate court in para 10 of its order that date of birth of delinquent juvenile is 4-10-19S8 and he is a juvenile. Both the courts below rejected the bail application of petitioner on the ground that if petitioner is released on bail, his release would defeat the ends of justice. Aggrieved by impugned order, under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') preferred this revision petition.
3. It has been vehemently argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a delinquent juvenile. There is no iota of evidence that if he will be released on bail, his 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. Learned Juvenile Board and Appellate Court have erred in holding that if petitioner is released on bail it would defeat the ends of justice. Contrary to that, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of revision petition.
4. During the course of arguments, learned panel lawyer submitted that an enquiry is going on regarding age of petitioner Girraj, so he is not entitled for bail till the completion of enquiry. But first appellate court in para 10 of its impugned order held that as per challan, petitioner has been shown as juvenile and his date of birth is 4-10-1988 as per mark-sheet and this evidence is held to be reliable which means appellate court held that applicant is a juvenile. So. at this stage arguments advanced by learned panel lawyer is not tenable.
5. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice 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.
6. In 2001(1) MPWN SN 76 Rahul Mishra v. State of M.P. it has been held by Single Judge of M.P. High Court that once a person is held to be a juvenile delinquent, then Section 18 of the Act (old 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. While considering the words 'ends of Justice' it has been observed by Hon. S.C. Pandey, J' that words 'ends of justice' should be confined to those facts which show that the grant of bail itself is likely to result in injustice. For example, there is likelihood of the juvenile delinquent, to whom the bail is granted, interfering with the course of justice or he is likely to abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court.' There may be other examples also. Burden to show that if delinquent juvenile is released on bail there appears a reasonable ground 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. Both the courts below held that if petitioner is . released on bail, his release would defeat the ends of justice. But, there is no evidence or material on record to show that if the petitioner is released on bail, there appears a reasonable ground 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. Except last ground, other has not been argued before Juvenile Board or Appellate Court that why bail application and appeal have been rejected only on the ground that Ms release shall defeat the ends of justice. So, these grounds for rejection of bail cannot be agitated in this revision petition and only ground that if the petitioner is released on bail it would defeat the ends of justice can be agitated in this revision petition.
7. In 2004 (2) R.C.C. 995 Manoj Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2006 (1) R.C.C. 167 Lal Chand v. State of Rajasthan 2006 (1) R.C.C. 337 Prakash v. State of Rajasthan 2005 (4) Crimes 110 Udaibhan Singh alias Bablu Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2005 (4) Crimes 649 Vijay Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2005 (2) Crimes 239 Balkar Singh v. State of Punjab and 2005 (3) Crimes 70 State through CBI v. Someshwar and Ors., it has been held by Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh High Courts that if there are no allegations that release of delinquent juvenile on bail shall bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release shall defeat the ends of justice, he deserves to be released on bail and merits or nature of offence has no relevance while considering the bail application of delinquent juvenile.
8. On going through the abovesaid citations, the legal position of granting or rejecting bail to a delinquent juvenile is very clear. While considering the bail application to juvenile only conditions enumerated in Section 12 of the Act should be seen and provisions of bail of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall not govern juvenile's bail application. Heinousness of offence is also has no relevance while considering the bail matter of a delinquent juvenile. Section 12 of the Act starts with non-obstante clause i.e., by using the expression 'notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force.' It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material, including the report of the Probation Officer, to show that the release of the delinquent juvenile on bail is likely to bring him into the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.
9. On going through the impugned order it is revealed that on the basis of Juvenile Board's order, appellate court held that if the petitioner is released on bail it would defeat the ends of justice. No reason has been assigned by appellate court in the impugned order to arrive at conclusion that if petitioner is released on bail it will defeat the ends of justice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner read the order of Juvenile Board dated 1-3-06 and argued that only on the ground of agitation done by some women and looking to the heinousness of offence Juvenile Board came to the conclusion that if petitioner is released on bail it will defeat the ends of justice. But heinousness of offence and agitation against criminal or crime committed by the petitioner is not sufficient ground to hold that if petitioner is released on bail it will defeat the ends of justice. It has been argued by learned panel lawyer that if the petitioner is released on bail he will abscond or he will interfere with the course of justice or he will intimidate the prosecution witnesses. But, there is no material on record to show that if petitioner is released on bail it will defeat the ends of justice. The juvenile delinquent appeared to be guilty prima facie offences charged against him. But he is specially protected by the Section 12 of the Act.
10. The report of Probation Officer reveals that petitioner Girraj belongs to reputed family. He has no criminal background and there is no likelihood of . committing any offence and he is of a good character and he respects his parents.
11. As per above discussion, I am of the opinion that both the courts below erred in rejecting the petitioner's bail application. There is no possibility that if petitioner is released on bail, his release shall bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release shall defeat the ends of justice. Impugned order passed by the appellate court and the order dated 1-3-06 passed by Juvenile Board are not sustainable in law and both the courts below committed jurisdictional error and illegality in passing both the orders. Consequently, revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 3-3-2006 passed by appellate court and the order dated 1-3-06 passed in Criminal Case No. 17/2006 by Juvenile Board, Guna are hereby set-aside and it is directed that petitioner Girraj shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond by his natural guardian in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Guna with the stipulation that on all the subsequent dates of hearing, he shall produce the delinquent juvenile before the said Board or any other Court during pendency of the inquiry and his guardian shall keep proper look-after of the juvenile delinquent and keep him away from the company of known criminals and subject to the decision of petitioner's age, if Juvenile Board comes to the conclusion that petitioner Girraj is not a juvenile then this order shall automatically stand vacated.
CC as per rules.