Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 329 (ALL)

Ramesh Chandra v. State of U. P.

2009-01-29

ALOK K.SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT: Alok K. Singh, J. Heard Sri R. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Umesh Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused record. 2. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No.423 of 2007, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Bhinga, District Shravasti. 3. In furtherance of this Court's order an explanation has been submitted contained in the supplementary counter affidavit that C.O. concerned has joined as C.O., Bhinga on 19.01.2009 itself and therefore he could not make compliance within time. The explanation appears to be satisfactory. Let it be kept on record. 4. It is submitted that this is an unfortunate case of dowry death wherein all the family members are said to be involved including the husband-applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that all the co-accused (father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law) have been enlarged on bail. But the bail application of the applicant was rejected on 23.11.2007 by the court below mainly on the ground of his being husband. The applicant has now been declared 'juvenile in conflict with law' by learned Sessions Judge, Shravasti vide order dated 24.11.2008 (Annexure to supplementary affidavit). Copies of this order have been endorsed to Superintendent District Jail, Bahraich and Juvenile Justice Board, Basti for information. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as the applicant had already submitted before this Court and his bail application was pending, no fresh application was moved before the Juvenile Justice Board for seeking bail. He further submits that in view of the specific provisions envisaged in the relevant Act [Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000)] he should not be unnecessarily detained along with other criminals in jail. 5. The norms are prescribed for granting bail to 'juvenile in conflict with law' in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000. Normally a juvenile has to be enlarged on bail with or without surety, unless there appears to be reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State does not reveal anything specific in this regard. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State does not reveal anything specific in this regard. It has been only said that if he is enlarged on bail and given in the custody of his parents there is every possibility that he may abscond or tamper the evidence and threat the witnesses. Firstly no material has been disclosed on the basis of which these averments have been made, and secondly none of these grounds are relevant so far Section 12 of the Act of 2000 is concerned. The only points which are to be considered are as to whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. In fact such a report should have been obtained from the concerned Probation Officer or the other authorities concerned which has not been done in this case. Lastly an objection can be raised under the residual ground that his release would defeat the ends of justice as mentioned in Section 12 of the Act. But in this regard also nothing substantial has been said. Learned A.G.A. says that as averred in para 4 of the supplementary affidavit if he is enlarged on bail he will live with his family members who are also co-accused in the present case. But again it is relevant to note that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000, it is the 'known criminals' whose association has to be avoided. In the present case the family members cannot be said to be known criminals in respect of their own son/one of the family members and there is no criminal history against any of the family members. The applicant is said to be in jail from July, 2007 i.e. for the last about one and half years. The bail is however, opposed by learned Additional Government Advocate. 6. Technically speaking, the applicant could have been directed to move an application for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board in view of the fact that now he has been declared 'juvenile in conflict with law' by the learned Sessions Judge. But age of technical Justice is over. The bail is however, opposed by learned Additional Government Advocate. 6. Technically speaking, the applicant could have been directed to move an application for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board in view of the fact that now he has been declared 'juvenile in conflict with law' by the learned Sessions Judge. But age of technical Justice is over. Having regard to the fact that he was declared juvenile during the pendency of bail application before this Court and taking a pragmatic view instead of paediantic approach in the matter and also keeping in view that it may cause further delay in the matter while the applicant has already been declared 'juvenile in conflict with law' it stands to reason to decide his bail matter here only in accordance with the aforesaid provision. 7. As mentioned hereinbefore the tone and tenor of the section 12 of the aforesaid Act, 2000 shows that once a person has been declared as 'juvenile in conflict with law', then the general law for him "is bail and not jail". His bail has to be refused only if any of the grounds mentioned in the section are brought before the Court. In the present case there is neither any report of the Probation Officer or any other authority concerned nor any other material on record to find a reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any 'known criminal' or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that release would defeat the ends of justice. Therefore I am inclined to enlarge him on bail. 8. Let, therefore, applicant (Ramesh Chandra) be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- by his father on his behalf and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board/court concerned. 9. It is also provided that his bonds shall be executed in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000 and the relevant rules.