Manoj @ Kali vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)
2006 Latest Caselaw 1065 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 02.03.2006, whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 10.02.2006 rejecting the petitioner's bail application, has been dismissed.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the impugned judgment and in particular paragraph 4 thereof to indicate that it is an admitted position that there is nothing adverse qua the petitioner in the Social Investigation Report. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that despite the Social Investigation Report being entirely in favor of the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and refused to grant him bail on the ground that if the petitioner were to be granted bail, it would defeat the ends of justice. The exact words used by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal are as under:-

After going through the above referred two judgments and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the matter, I feel that if appellant is released at this stage when trial is yet to be started, it would defeat the end of justice because the witness are yet to be examined. The case against the other persons are also pending in the other courts. The release of the appellant at this stage may effect the trial in the main case also. In these circumstances of the matter, I do not found it a fit case to grant bail to the appellant at this stage. The Juvenile may be granted bail at the appropriate stage. This appeal can not be accepted. Accordingly it is dismissed.

3. Referring to the above extract, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has indicated that the ends of justice would be defeated because (a) the trial is yet to commence; (b) the case against the co-accused, who are not juveniles, are also pending in other courts; (c) the release of the petitioner may affect the trial in the main case also. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that these are not considerations which could be taken into account for coming to a conclusion that the release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice. He referred to the following decisions in support of his contentions:-

i) Mohd. Feroz @ Bhola v. State 2005 [3] JCC 1313;

ii) Shashi Kumar Saini v. The State 2005 VI AD Delhi 200;

iii) Master Niku Chaubey v. State 2006 [2] JCC 720;

iv) Arvind v. State 1999 (2) JCC Delhi 311; and

v) Master Abhishek (Minor) v. State 2005 VI AD Delhi 18.

4. Mr Sharma, who appeared for the State, referred to the provisions of Section 2(q) and 2(o) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') to indicate that the petitioner, instead of being released on bail, be placed either in an observation home or in a place of safety. He supported the view taken by the courts below and submitted that the role of the petitioner was of catching hold of the deceased, who ultimately lost his life because of an alleged attack by the co-accused. He also submitted that the word shall used in Section 12 of the said Act does not indicate that in every case, the juvenile has to be granted bail. The courts have to exercise judicial discretion while granting or refusing bail. Section 12 of the said 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, 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.

5. In Mohd Feroz @ Bhola (supra), it was held that the section makes it mandatory for a person to be released where such person is apparently a juvenile, unless, of course, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release of such person 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. It was further held that the question of bail was not a question of mercy insofar as the aforesaid provision was concerned. It was mandatory and stipulates that such a person, who is apparently a juvenile, shall be released on bail. In Shashi Kumar (supra), this Court had granted bail to the juvenile considering the Social Investigation Report. In that case also, it was indicated that the provisions of Section 12 of the said Act are mandatory. In Master Niku Chaubey (supra), it was observed by this Court that the nature of the offence is not one of the conditions on which bail can be granted or refused to the juvenile. It was held that bail in respect of the juvenile has to be considered purely under the parameters of Section 12 of the said Act which requires bail to be granted mandatorily unless the court feels that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association of any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Earlier also, in the case of Arvind v. State (supra), this Court had observed that the gravity of the offence is not a criteria or impediment for the release of the juvenile on bail.

6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has refused to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground that if the petitioner is released on bail, it would defeat the ends of justice. What exactly is the meaning of the expression defeat the ends of justice has been indicated in Master Abhishek (supra). It has been held in that decision that the factors for determining as to what amounts to defeat of the ends of justice in the context of Section 12 of the said Act have also to be located in the context of the purpose of the Act. In the said decision, the preamble was quoted which clearly states that the Act is one 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 developmental 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. The court observed that while dealing with an application for bail, these factors have to be kept in mind. The court concluded that, 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 can it be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

7. It is, therefore, clear from a reference to the aforesaid decisions that a juvenile has to be released on bail mandatorily unless and until the exceptions carved out in the section itself are made out. The exceptions being:-

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

b) his release is likely to expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger; and

c) his release would defeat the ends of justice.

8. Insofar as the first two exceptions are concerned, these are not in issue in the present case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has refused to grant bail to the petitioner invoking the third exception, i.e., that if the juvenile is released, it would defeat the ends of justice. The reasons for arriving at this conclusion are entirely different from the factors which require to be considered as indicated in Master Abhishek (supra). The question of the ends of justice being defeated has to be considered in the context of the welfare of the juvenile, whereas what the learned Additional Sessions Judge has done is that, according to him, the ends of justice would be defeated because the trial is yet to commence; the cases against co-accused are pending in other courts; release of the juvenile would affect the trial in the main case. None of these are factors which have to be taken into account when a decision is required as to whether the release of the juvenile would defeat the ends of justice or not. Apart from this, nothing else has been pointed out which would indicate that the release of the petitioner would result in a defeat of the ends of justice.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on the petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner's father, who is present in court and is a Government servant working as a Wireman in the PWD Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi, states that he shall ensure that his son, i.e., the petitioner, shall not stray into bad company or be associated with any known criminals. He shall also ensure that proper education is imparted to his son and that due care and attention is given to him, both in school as well as at home so that his developmental process is not hindered in any manner whatsoever. The petitioner's father shall also file an affidavit to this effect prior to the release of the petitioner. The petitioner shall not make any contact, directly or indirectly with any of the witnesses or the co-accused.

This revision petition stands disposed of.

dusty.