Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) on 6 September, 2006
Author: B D Ahmed
Bench: B D Ahmed
JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 6.6.2006 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board rejecting the petitioner's bail application, was dismissed.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner, being a juvenile, the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (hereinafter referred to as `the said Act'), would apply insofar as the question of consideration of grant of bail to the juvenile is concerned. He submits that as a rule, a juvenile has to be granted bail unless his case falls under one of the exceptions carved out in Section 12 itself. Referring to a decision of this Court in Manoj @ Kali v. The State (NCT of Delhi) delivered on 2.6.2006 in Criminal Rev. (P) 178/2006, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the 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.
He submits that there is nothing to indicate that if the juvenile is released, he would be brought in association with any known criminal. He further submits that there is nothing in the Social Investigation Report which would indicate that his release was likely to expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger and, of course, there is nothing to suggest that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and in particular, to the contents of paragraph 5 thereof, wherein it is recorded that a perusal of the Social Investigation Report reveals that the juvenile had admitted his charges. He then referred to the copy of the Social Investigation Report, where there is no such admission. On the other hand, it is clearly stated in the Social Investigation Report that the juvenile had denied his offence and that the juvenile had told the Social Investigation Officer that he has not done any wrong act with the victim. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the finding which found favor with the learned Additional Sessions Judge is contrary to the record. As regards the question of the prosecutrix living in proximity to the petitioner and, therefore, there being likelihood of the situation being aggravated, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father has already given an affidavit indicating that the petitioner would be kept at a different place where the petitioner's maternal uncle resides, i.e. at Greater Kailash, New Delhi, which is at a great distance from the place where the prosecutrix resides.
3. The learned Counsel for the State supported the impugned order. However, he could not point out as to how the present case would fall under any of the three exceptions mentioned in Section 12 of the said Act. The finding with regard to the admission of the charges by the petitioner recorded in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also contrary to the record.
4. In keeping with the various decisions of this Court mentioned in Manoj @ Kali (supra), the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his father 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 is present in Court. He 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 has already indicated that the petitioner shall reside with his maternal uncle at a distance away from where the prosecutrix resides. He has also indicated that he shall 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 a fresh affidavit indicating all these circumstances and undertakings prior to the release of the petitioner. The petitioner shall also not make any contact direct or indirect with any of the witnesses or the prosecutrix.
4. This revision petition stands disposed of.
5. dusty.
