Judgment:
(1) This revision petition preferred under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is directed against an order dated 2/6/11 passed in Criminal Appeal No.197/11, by the Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.), rejecting thereby an application of the petitioner-accused seeking his release on bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2000.
(2) Facts of the case, as borne out from the record of the case are that on 20/4/11, accused-petitioner accompanied with his sister, namely, Priya and one other co-accused Chandrapal committed murder of Varun by inflicting him knife and Gandasa blows. It is alleged by the prosecution that the sister of the accused-petitioner fell in love with deceased but on account of her different caste, the deceased refused her to marry, which resulted into his death. The accused was arrested and brought before the Juvenile Board. He submitted an application for bail which was rejected vide order dated 18/5/11. Being aggrieved, he preferred an appeal under Section 52 of the Act before the learned Sessions Judge, which is dismissed under the impugned order. Hence, this revision.
(3) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an illegality in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner-accused for bail while dismissing his appeal. He placed reliance on some of reported/un-reported decisions of this court in the cases of Udham @ Dinesh v. State of M.P. (2006) 2 MPWN 96, Rajkumar v. State of M.P. (2008) 1 MPWN 94, Avadh Bihari Singh Chauhan v. State of M.P. (Cri.Rev.No.105/10), vide order dated 8/2/10 and Ramu @ Ravindra v. State of M.P. (Cri. Rev.No.222/11) vide order dated 27/4/11 of this bench to substantiate that the petitioner should also be extended the benefit of grant of bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
(4) On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State submitted that no illegality or perversity appears to have been committed by the courtsbelow in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, considering the nature of crime committed by him.
Therefore, the impugned order passed by the appellate court can not be termed as illegal or against the material on record. Hence, according to him, revision is liable to be dismissed.
(5) Considered the contentions raised by both the sides and also perused the record of the Board alongwith provisions of law applicable to the case.
(6) The provision contained in Section 12 of the Act lays down that if a juvenile accused is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall not be released if there appears 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 this release would defeat the ends of justice. Thus, every juvenile for whatsoever offence he is charged with, shall be released on bail except under the above circumstances. Of course, the bail application of juvenile can be refused, if the above grounds or any one of the grounds exists. Thus, the exception would be that he shall not be so released if there appears 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 would defeat the ends of justice.
(7) On perusal of the present case, it is clear that the accused-petitioner accompanied with his sister, namely, Priya and one other co-accused Chandrapal committed murder of Varun by inflicting him knife and Gandasa blows on the ground of his refusal to marry with his sister. Accused Priya is still out of clutches of the police.
The application for his bail has been rejected by the Board and on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground of seriousness of the crime. Furthermore, on perusal of the orders passed by the two courts, it appears that there existed exception mentioned in the section for believing that the release of the delinquent juvenile would defeat the ends of justice. However, it cannot be lost sight off the fact that the said provision is indicative of the intent of the Legislature that a juvenile offender should not be kept in custody normally except in the circumstances narrated in Section 18 of the Act. The record also suggested that the petitioner is not having any criminal background and his tendency is not to indulge in crime and his release would not defeat the ends of justice. Under these circumstances, refusal of bail would be against the intention of the Act.
(7) Therefore, taking into consideration all these facts, in the opinion of this court, ends of justice would be served if the petitioner through his guardian is directed to move afresh for bail before the Juvenile Board and if such an application is moved, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Court subject to the condition that the parents of the juvenile shall keep watch over him during the period of his release and keep him present on each and every dates of hearing before the Board and shall not allow their child to bring into association with any known/unknown criminals and further ensure that his release shall not defeat the ends of justice, in any manner. It is further directed that the Probation Officer shall periodically keep vigilance over the delinquent juvenile and observe his activities and in the event of any adversity noticed by him he shall cause arrest for him. Eventually, the order granting bail to the petitioner shall stand automatically cancelled.
(8) In view of what has been stated above, the revision stands allowed in the manner indicated above, setting aside thereby the order impugned herein.