Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 152 (CHH)

SANDEEP v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2007-02-21

SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2007
SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 22. 12. 2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, ambikapur, District-Surguja (CG) in Criminal Appeal No. 200/2006. The aforesaid criminal appeal was filed against the order dated 02. 11. 2006 passed by the Juvenile justice Board, Ambikapur by which an application for grant of bail to the applicant/juvenile was dismissed by the aforesaid Court. ( 2 ) AGAINST the aforesaid order dated 02. 11. 2006, an earlier revision vide No. 699/2006 was filed on behalf of the applicant, which was heard and allowed by the order dated 28. 11. 2006 by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Sessions Court for passing an appropriate order in accordance with law. It is after this remand order, the Sessions Judge again took up this matter for hearing and passed this order dated 22. 12. 2006 against which this criminal revision has been filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2000. ( 3 ) THIS matter relates to Crime No. 78/2005, registered at police Station-Ramkola, District-Surguja (CG), for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402/34 of the i. P. C. and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. ( 4 ) IT is stated in the impugned order and also clear from the order-sheets that this juvenile has absconded from the samprekshan on 27. 1. 2006 and thereafter he has surrendered after about 10 months on 2. 11. 2006 and an application for releasing him on bail was filed, which was dismissed by the Board holding that looking to the conduct of the juvenile and also looking to the allegations in the charge-sheet, his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, therefore, the release was not proper. Almost similar view has been taken by the Sessions Judge while rejecting the appeal by order dated 22. 12. 2006. The Sessions Judge has also recorded the finding that in the facts and circumstances, if the juvenile is released on bail, it shall defeat the ends of justice and it will bring him into association with any known criminal. Almost similar view has been taken by the Sessions Judge while rejecting the appeal by order dated 22. 12. 2006. The Sessions Judge has also recorded the finding that in the facts and circumstances, if the juvenile is released on bail, it shall defeat the ends of justice and it will bring him into association with any known criminal. Though this view has been taken by the Sessions Judge in the criminal appeal filed by the juvenile but the Sessions Judge has not recorded any reason on the basis of which such a view has been taken. ( 5 ) A learned Single Judge of the allahabad High Court held in the matter of lavkush Chamar @ Lavkushseth v. State of u. P. that release of juvenile, no doubt can be refused if anyone of the 3 circumstances referred to in Section 12 of the said Act exist, but the existence of such circumstances should not be merely a guess work of the court, but it should be based on some evidence may be police report, or the report of the probation officer or any other such evidence, which can substantiate the refusal of release. On the similar logic, Rajasthan high Court in the matter of Murari v. State of Rajasthan, released a juvenile holding that no material is there on record to support that the conditions referred to in Section 12 of the said Act, which disentitle the accused applicant from granting bail, was available against the accused (Para 7 ). Allahabad High Court also held in the matter of Deepak Kumar v. State of U. P. that it is not that the mere quoting of few lines from this Act, the bail should be refused as the impugned order of the said case does not show any such ground. The High Court further held that the impugned order was passed in utter disregard of Section 12 of the said Act and it nowhere shows that release would defeat the ends of justice and more over there is also nothing to show as to how the release would defeat the ends of justice. The High Court further held that the impugned order was passed in utter disregard of Section 12 of the said Act and it nowhere shows that release would defeat the ends of justice and more over there is also nothing to show as to how the release would defeat the ends of justice. ( 6 ) I have also considered this point as to what is meant by using phraseology "reasonable grounds for believing" in sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 in the matter of Chhotu Babu v. State of chhattisgarh. I have quoted vide Para-13 in the aforesaid matter that the probable logical meaning of using of phraseology like "reasonable grounds for believing" in Section 12 (1) of the Act 2000 clearly indicates that the "reasonable grounds for believing" is not the same thing as "suspicion" or "doubt" and the guess work of the Board and is something higher than that it is more than prima facie grounds and it must contemplate substantial probable cause for believing the Board that the release of the juvenile is likely to put him under either of the three conditions mentioned in Section 12 (1) of the Act and the provision requires the existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves worth reasonably believing by a Court of law. Unless there appears to be existence of such circumstances, in a particular case, the mandate of Legislature commanding the prohibition of release of juvenile cannot be exercised by the Board. Whether such grounds are existing or not is a matter of fact to be examined with reference to each particular case. (Emphasis supplied) ( 7 ) MOREOVER, a judicial order is always required to be passed on reasonings and if the order is unreasoned, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice (Please see Alexander Machinery Dudley Ltd. v. Crabtree. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice (Please see Alexander Machinery Dudley Ltd. v. Crabtree. ( 8 ) IN view of the above, when the reasons are not recorded by the Sessions Judge for taking such a view for not releasing the juvenile on bail, I hold that there was no reasonable ground with the said Court or Board for not releasing him merely by saying that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or his release would defeat the ends of justice. ( 9 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Sessions judge is set aside. The bail application filed by the juvenile before the Board is allowed. ( 10 ) IT is directed that the applicant/juvenile shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Board for appearance of the applicant/juvenile before the said Board on each date of hearing till the disposal of the trial. The bail bond shall be furnished by the father/guardian of the juvenile, as the case may be. The revision stands finally disposed of. Revision allowed. --- *** --- .