V. B. Bansal ( 1 ) NAVIN Panwar alias Neetu has moved this petition forbeing released on bail for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 450/93, recorded at Police Station R. K. Puram, New Delhi. It is a case in respect ofan incident dated 1. 9. 1993 in which , one Manish Gaur alias Montee sustainedinjuries resulting in his death. According to the prosecution story, the petitionerhad inflicted 7-8 knife injuries to the deceased. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly, thepetitioner was a child, less than 16 years, at the time of the alleged incident andkeeping in view the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act,1986 (thereinafter REFERRED TO to as "the Act", the petitioner ought to have beenreleased on bail. He has further submitted that the petitioner is not a previousconvict and he has parents to look after and take care of him. He has also submittedthat the Juvenile Court as also the learned Additional Sessions Judge have erred indeclining the grant of bail to the petitioner. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, submitted thatin spite of the fact that the petitioner was less then 16 years at the time of thisincident, he has inflicted 7-8 knife injuries to Manish Gaur @ Montee, an innocentboy, resulting in his death. She has also submitted that the release of the petitionerwould defeat the ends of justice since it would amount to giving encouragement toa person committing such a heinous offence. A prayer has, therefore, been madethat the application may be dismissed. ( 4 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to these submission and have alsogone through the statements as also the order of the Juvenile Court and that oflearned Additional Sessions Judge, it would, at this stage, be appropriate, to refer to Sub section (i) of Section 18 of the Act, which read as under:- "18. ( 4 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to these submission and have alsogone through the statements as also the order of the Juvenile Court and that oflearned Additional Sessions Judge, it would, at this stage, be appropriate, to refer to Sub section (i) of Section 18 of the Act, which read as under:- "18. Bail and custody of Juveniles.- (1) When any person accused of abailable or non-bailable offence and apparently a juvenile is arrested ordetained or appears or is brought before a Juvenile Court, such person shall,notwithstanding anything contianed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bailwith or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appearreasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him intoassociation with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger or thathis release would defeat the ends of justice. " ( 5 ) A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it abundantly clear thatordinarily, a juvenile has to be released on bail irrespective of the nature of theoffence alleged to have been committed by him unless it is shown that there appearsreasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to bring him under theinfluence of any criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release woulddefeat the ends of justice. There can possibly be no dispute that in this incident, asin any such like incident, a precious life has been lost and as per the allegations ofthe prosecution, it was at the hands of the petitioner. The short question forconsideration is as to whether there is sufficient material available to indicate thatthe petitioner should not be allowed bail in spite of he being a child less than 16years at the time of commission of this offence. ( 6 ) IN case Arjun v. The State (24) 1983 D. L. T. 65 bail was allowed for theoffence of murder to ajuvenile since there was no material to show that the case wascovered by the exceptions contained in Sub-sec. (1) of Section 18. It has also beenmentioned in the said judgment that there was nothing to suggest that the accusedwas a previous convict. I had an occasion to deal with this matter in case Ram Inderv. State 1993 (1) C. C. C. 327 (HC), wherein. (1) of Section 18. It has also beenmentioned in the said judgment that there was nothing to suggest that the accusedwas a previous convict. I had an occasion to deal with this matter in case Ram Inderv. State 1993 (1) C. C. C. 327 (HC), wherein. Ram Inder, accused of an offencepunishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was allowed bail, keeping in view the fact that theinvestigation carried out till that time indicated that he was a child less than 16years of age and there was no other material so as to hold that he was not entitledto be released on bail. Following this judgment, Hon ble Mr. Justice Satpal of thiscourt allowed bail to Mohammed Elias in case Mohd. Elias v. State 1994 (1) C. C. C. 10 (HC ). ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner wasinvolved in a case under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and that the release of the petitioner on bailwould defeat the ends of justice as it would amount to encouragement to a persontaking law in his own hands and committing a heinous offence like murder. Therecan possibly be no dispute that if there is material to indicate that the release of thepetitioner would bring him into the association with a known criminal or his releasewould defeat the ends of justice, the bail can be declined. In the instant case, therehas not been any material so as to indicate that the petitioner had made efforts totemper with the evidence or otherwise on what basis, there could be an apprehension that he would fall into the association with known criminals. It would beconvenient, at this stage, to refer to the case Daya v. State of M. P. 1993 (2) Crimes201, wherein it has been held that mere apprehension of creating terror or oftempering with the evidence, is not sufficient to refuse bail. Learned Counsel forthe respondent has REFERRED TO to the case Kalyan v. State of Rajasthan 1981 Cri. L. J. 1472 and submitted that it is a fit case where the petitioner ought not be granted bail. A perusal of this judgment shows that it was based on facts different from the factsof the present case. Learned Counsel forthe respondent has REFERRED TO to the case Kalyan v. State of Rajasthan 1981 Cri. L. J. 1472 and submitted that it is a fit case where the petitioner ought not be granted bail. A perusal of this judgment shows that it was based on facts different from the factsof the present case. It was a case of rape and the petitioner after committing offence,left the victim profusely bleading, who became unconscious and there was adispute with regard to the age of the petitioner also. In the instant case, thepetitioner was admittedly less than 16 years of age at the time of incident. ( 7 ) THE case Guddu v. State of U. P. [1990 Cri. L. J. 1531], REFERRED TO to by thelearned Counsel for the respondent, in my view, cannot be of any her to therespondent. It was a case in respect of the petitioner below 16 years involved in acase of pick pocketing. Bail was declined by the Magistrate as also the Sessionsjudge. Repeatition of crime could be ground for refusing the bail, but the petitionerwas allowed bail since no reason had been given by the Courts below while refusingbail. ( 8 ) IN the instannt case, submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner hasbeen that it is unfortunate that a young life has been lost in this incident, but thepetitioner being a juvenile, less than 16 years of age at the time of commission of theoffence and there being nothing to indicate as to how it would defeat the ends ofjustice, it is a fit case for releasing the petitioner on bail. ( 9 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to all the aforesaid facts and havealso gone through the statements recorded during the investigation. Consideringthe totality of circumstances I find it to be a fit case for the grant of bail. ( 10 ) AS a result, I order for the release of the petitioner, subject to his furnishinga personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 with one surety in the like amount to thesatisfaction of the concerned Court and on the condition that he will not temperwith the evidence and would not give any threat to the witnesses and would not tryto delay the proceedings in the case. He will not indulge in "criminal activitiesduring the period of bail.