Dev Vrat (Minor) vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi
2006 Latest Caselaw 1607 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has completely misdirected himself in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner merely on the consideration of the nature of the offence and that the release of the petitioner would not be in the interest of justice.

2. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 24.7.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in an appeal against the order dated 25.4.2006 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board declining the petitioner's application for bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the bail by observing:

The nature of offence is quite heinous, the age of victim is quite tender being 2 years only. Taking into consideration the said facts, I find myself in complete agreement with the observations of the Juvenile Justice Board that it would not be in the interest of justice to release the delinquent on bail. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board. File be consigned to Record Room.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the State. In view of the decision of this Court in Manoj @ Kali v. State (NCT of Delhi): 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 357, the position of law with regard to grant of bail to a juvenile under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2000, is clear 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 first exception is a reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal. This exception is not made out inasmuch as the Social Investigation Report does not reveal any such likelihood of the juvenile coming into association with any known criminal. The second exception is that the release of the juvenile is likely to expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger. This exception is also not made out inasmuch as there is no material either in the Social Investigation Report or in the available record of the case to suggest any such exposure. The third exception is that the release of the juvenile would defeat the ends of the justice. The finding recorded in the impugned order is based on the nature of the offence as well as the release of the petitioner not being in the interest of justice. There is a difference between the expressions in the interest of justice and defeat of the ends of justice. The expression defeat the ends of justice has been interpreted by this Court in the case of Master Abhishek (Minor) v. State: 2005 VI AD Delhi 18 by holding that the factors for determining as to what amounts to defeat of the ends of justice must be construed in the context of the purpose of the Act. It was indicated in the said decision that what needs to be adopted is 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 the enactment. What is important is that the Court should keep in mind the developmental needs of the juvenile and the necessity for his rehabilitation. It is only if the developmental needs of the child require that he be kept in custody or that keeping him in custody is necessary for his rehabilitation or care or protection that his release would defeat the ends of justice, not otherwise. In the present case, no such circumstance has been pointed out so as to indicate that the release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice. In this view, none of the exceptions carved out in Section 12 are satisfied and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

4. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on the petitioner's father furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 20,000/- 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 working as a Group `D' employee in the Directorate of All India Radio, states that he shall ensure that his son shall not fall 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 before the Juvenile Justice Board, prior to the release of the petitioner. The petitioner shall not try to make any contact, directly or indirectly, with the prosecutrix or any of the witnesses.

5. This revision petition stands disposed of dusty.