Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 181 (PNJ)

Paramjit Kumar @ Mangla v. State Of Punjab

2000-02-11

AMAR DUTT

body2000
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. The petitioner who are stated to be juveniles are alleged to have committed rape upon Gurmeet Kaur another minor on 6.10.1999. Their bail application was dealt with by the Juvenile Court, Ludhiana, where it was contended on behalf of the State that the offence committed by the petitioners was "a serious and heinous crime and as such they are not entitled to be released on bail as it would defeat the ends of justice." Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case especially the fact that the prosecutrix was also only 13 years of age, the Juvenile Court had declined bail to them because it was of the view that such an order would "defeat the ends of justice and expose the delinquent juveniles to moral danger." 2. On behalf of the applicants, it is submitted that such an order was not warranted in law and it defeats the objectives sought to be achieved by the provisions of Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned counsel for the petitioners has adverted to the portions of the MLR pertaining to the prosecutrix, which indicate that "no external mark of injury of recent origin on the person of Gurmeet Kaur was shown", as also the fact that her Salwar, Kameez, and Panty had not been sent to the Chemical Examiner. He has also sought to rely upon the judicial pronouncements to emphasize that the use of the word `shall in Section 18 of the Act indicates that a juvenile delinquent should in all cases be admitted to bail. When a juvenile is arrested, the Officer incharge of a police station is obliged as per Section 19 of the Act to :- (a) inform the parent or guardian of the juvenile, if he can be found, of such arrest and direct him to be present at the Juvenile Court before which the juvenile will appear; and (b) the probation officer of such arrest in order to enable him to obtain information regarding the antecedents and family history of the juvenile and other material circumstances likely to be of assistance of the Juvenile Court for making the inquiry." 3. When a juvenile delinquent is brought before a Juvenile Court/Bench, the Court is obliged to hold an inquiry as indicated in Section 20 of the Act, which has to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 39 of the Act. Before making any orders under the Act, which would include orders under Section 18 of the Act, the Court is required to take into consideration the provisions of Section 33 of the Act, which is as under :- Circumstances to be taken into consideration in making orders he Acts :- In making any order in respect of a juvenile under this Act, a competent authority shall take into consideration the following circumstances, namely :- (a) The age of the juvenile; (b) The state of physical and mental health of the juvenile; (c) The circumstances in which the juvenile was and is living; (d) The reports made by the probation officer; (e) The religious persuasion of the juvenile; (f) Such other circumstances as may, in the opinion of the competent authority, require to be taken into consideration in the interest of the welfare of the juvenile; Provided that in the case of a delinquent juvenile, the above circumstances shall be taken into consideration after the Juvenile Court has recorded a finding against the juvenile that he has committed the offence ; Provided further that if no report of the probation officer is received within ten weeks of his being informed under Section 19, it shall be open to the Juvenile Court to proceed without it." 4. The circumstances spelt out in the above provision would necessarily assist the Court for assessing whether the delinquent should or should not he released on bail as it would provide material for the Court to come to the conclusion whether there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 5. Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel for the State has not been able to pin point any material on the basis of which the inference drawn by the Court regarding section 19 referred to above, could be stated to have been based. 6. 5. Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel for the State has not been able to pin point any material on the basis of which the inference drawn by the Court regarding section 19 referred to above, could be stated to have been based. 6. In this view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are minors as is evident from the certificates attached, as also the fact that no material has been points doubt to support the inference which has been drawn and continued detention of the petitioners may not be warranted, I feel that the interest of justice would require that the petitioners be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Court. Orders accordingly.