Master Abhishek (Minor) vs State
2005 Latest Caselaw 119 Del

JUDGMENT

Manju Goel, J.

1. The revision petition is directed against the order refusing bail to the petitioner who is a Juvenile. Petitioner was arrested in an offence u/s 323/302/34 IPC in case FIR No. 338/04 dated 5.7.2004 PS Kalyan Puri. As per practice, Juvenile Justice Board asked for the social investigation report. The Probation Officer in the social investigation report dated 12.8.2004 says that the petitioner was not arrested in any previous case and that the family was taking care of the juvenile properly. He further reports that the ethical and religious value of the family are normal. The relationship between the family members was healthy and there was no anti-social history of the family. As per the school record, the juvenile was a good student having scored scholarship in class VII. The circumstances leading to the offence are said to be co-incidental. The Juvenile Justice Board rejected the application for bail on the observation that the juvenile was of impulsive nature. Further, it was observed that the manner in which the juvenile committed the crime shows his aggressive behavior as well as tendencies to harm others and that the fact that the person assaulted only with his fist and arms died shows his brutal mental make up. The Juvenile Justice Board observed that in these circumstances it would not be in the interest of justice to admit the juvenile to bail. The learned trial court found no infirmity in the order.

2. It is submitted before this Court that the severity of the offence is not one of the conditions on which bail can be granted or refused to the juvenile. Section 12 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 allows bail to every juvenile. The exceptions to the general rule are :-

(1) There appears to be a reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal;

(2) The release is likely to expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger;

(3) His release would defeat ends of justice.

3. Admittedly the petitioner/juvenile is not a member of any gang. Nor has he committed the offence as a member of any group of anti-socials. The social investigation report shows that the offence was committed in circumstances which were co-incidental. There is no previous history of the juvenile having become delinquent. In fact, the school record shows the juvenile to be academically oriented. His neighbours are happy with him. The family has been supportive and has been taking care of the child. Therefore if he is released and is sent back to the family there is no likelyhood that he would be exposed to moral or psychological danger.

4. The only thing that remains to be seen is whether his release will defeat the ends of justice. Justice here should be interpreted in the context of the other provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act 2000. The aim behind this act is the welfare of children. The very preamble of this act describes the purpose of enacting it and the following part of the same can be quoted here with profit:-

"An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to juveniles in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection, by providing for proper care, protection and treatment by catering to their development needs, and by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters in the best interest of children and for their ultimate rehabilitation through various institutions established under this enactment."

5. What can be said to be the factors to determine what will defeat the ends of justice have to be located in the context of the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the Act is to meet the need of care and protection of children and to cater to their development needs. This can be done by adopting a child friendly approach in the adjudication are desposition of matters in the best interest of children and for their ultimate rehabilitation. Therefore if there is a factor which requires the Court to keep the child in custody for meeting the developmental needs of the child or for his rehabilitation, or for his care and protection then only it can be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

6. I do not mean to unduly restrict the meaning of the phrase "defeat ends of justice". In case the Board feels that if the child is released he may commit the offence again that would also be covered by the phrase.

7. Shri Sunil Sharma, State Counsel opposed the bail petition and says that the present case is covered by this expression "defeat ends of justice" because the father of the child himself is in jail and since there is no protective hand on him he is likely to commit the offence similar offence in future. I cannot agree with Mr. Sharma. In the first place, SI itself says that the offence was committed in certain circumstances and the child himself does not have any criminal traits. Secondly, the mother of the juvenile and his sister with whom the juvenile enjoys warm relationship also provide supportive protection to him.

8. In the case of Arvind v. State 1999 (2) JCC (Delhi) 361 this Court granted bail to a juvenile accused of an offence u/s 302/201/120B/506/34 IPC on observation that there can be only three exceptions to the general rule and that the gravity of the offence is not the criterion for considering the prayer for bail.

9. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed and the juvenile, Master Abhishek, is released on a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the competent authority subject to the condition that the petitioner shall report to the Investigating Officer in this case every second Monday and the Investigating Officer will periodically report to the Juvenile Justice Board about the conduct and behavior of the petitioner.