Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1131 (DEL)

RAHUL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2006-07-10

BADAR DURREZ AHMED

body2006
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition directed against the judgment and order dated 13/3/2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Juvenile Justice board dated 1/3/2006 whereby the petitioner's application for bail was refused. ( 2 ) THE Counsel for the parties have been heard. In the impugned judgment itself, it is noted in paragraph ? thereof that there is nothing adverse in the Social investigation Report. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, went on to discuss the facts of the case and also noted the judgments relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded as under:"5. 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 witnesses are yet to be examined. The accused is otherwise a son of a police official. In these circumstances of the matter, 1 do not find it a fit case to grant bail to the appellant at this stage. This appeal cannot be accepted. Accordingly it is dismissed. " ( 3 ) IT is clear from a reading of the aforesaid extract that the petitioner's appeal and consequent application for bail was rejected on the ground that if the appellant is released at this stage, when the trial is yet to be started, it would defeat the ends of justice because the witnesses are yet to be examined. ( 4 ) IT may be noted that in the case of Manoj @ Kali v. The State (NCT of Delhi : Crl. Rev. P. 178/2006 decided 2. 6. 2006, this Court was, inter alia, concerned with a similar observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the effect that 'if appellant is released at this stage when trial is yet to be started, it would defeat the ends of justice because the witnesses are yet to be examined. Rev. P. 178/2006 decided 2. 6. 2006, this Court was, inter alia, concerned with a similar observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the effect that 'if appellant is released at this stage when trial is yet to be started, it would defeat the ends of justice because the witnesses are yet to be examined. ' After examining the various decisions insofar as Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was concerned, the Court came to the conclusion that 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 had done is that, according to him, the ends of justice would be defeated because the trial was yet to commence and witnesses had to be examined. In the present case also the observations and grounds mentioned by the learned Additional Sessions judge are the same. None of these are factors which have to be taken into account when adecision is required on 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. In Manoj @ Kali (supra) the decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of Master Abhishek (Minor) v. State, 119 (2005) DLT 556=2005 VI AD Delhi 18 was followed wherein the exact meaning of the expression 'defeat the ends of justice' was examined. In that case, the Court concluded that 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. In the present case, apart from stating that the trial is yet to commence and witnesses are yet to be examined and that the petitioner is the son of a police officer, there is nothing to indicate that if the juvenile is released then it would harm the developmental needs of the juvenile, would harm his rehabilitation or would prejudice his care and protection. ( 5 ) IN these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. 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. 00 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner's father, who is present in Court, shall states that he shall file an affidavit within three days indicating that he shall take proper care of the petitioner so as to ensure that the petitioner continues with his education and that he is well looked after at home. He shall also ensure that the petitioner does not fall into any bad company. He shall also ensure that the petitioner shall not come into contact with any of the witnesses or any other persons connected with the incident. This revision petition stands disposed of. Revision Petition disposed of.