Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 19 (CHH)

Virendra Kumar Alias v. State of Chhattisgarh

2009-01-19

T.P.SHARMA

body2009
ORDER On being mentioned by the learned counsel for the applicants, matter is taken up today for hearing. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 28-11- 2008 passed by Twelfth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg affirming the order dated 24-09-2008 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Durg in Criminal Case No. 248/2008 whereby the Court below has rejected the bail application filed on behalf of the Juvenile applicants. 3. The order is challenged on the ground that Court below has not considered the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants Virendra Kumar @ Bhaloo Gupta and Vikas Kumar @ Sonoo Gupta are juvenile as they are aged about 17 and 15 years respectively. They were present in their own shop at the time of alleged incident and have not caused any injury to the complainant. 6. They are in custody since 10-09-2008 and there is no likelihood to bring them into the association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that it would defeat the ends of justice. Release of juvenile on bail in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (henceforth `the Act') is mandatory in nature and in the absence of any circumstance shown in Section 12 of the Act. But in this case, their bail has been rejected by the Courts below. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the non-applicant/State opposes the petition and submits that the applicants had caused fatal injury to the complainant with dangerous weapon i.e. Gandasa. Their prosecution for the offence under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C and under Section 25 of the Arms Act is pending against the present applicants. There is every likelihood to bring them into the association with known criminal and their release would defeat the ends of justice. 8. According to the case of prosecution, these applicants had caused fatal injury to the complainant and they are facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, is pending against the present applicants. 8. According to the case of prosecution, these applicants had caused fatal injury to the complainant and they are facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, is pending against the present applicants. Prosecution has not collected any material to show that there is any likelihood to bring them into association with the known criminals or to expose any moral, physical or psychological danger or their release would defeat the ends of justice. In the case of Mangal Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, passed in Criminal Revision No.673/2008 decided on 05-11-2008, this Court has held that the provisions of Section 12 is mandatory in nature and in the absence of any ground shown in Section 12 of the Act, denial of bail to juvenile would not be in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. 9. The Court below has not considered the grounds for denial of the bail to the juvenile and thereby committed an illegality. The order is not sustainable in law and accordingly it is set aside. It is directed that in the event of furnishing solvent surety of Rs.10,000/- on behalf of each of the applicants to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board for their regular appearance before the said Board, they be released on bail. Certified copy as per rules.