Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1783 (RAJ)

Sandeep Kumar v. State

2010-10-26

C.M.TOTLA

body2010
Hon'ble TOTLA, J.—For petitioner, a juvenile in conflict with law, his father preferring this petition requests for allowing bail under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). Assailed is the order under Section 12 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board on 9.9.10 in FIR No. 676/09 P.S. Nimbahera registered for the offence of Section 8/18 NDPS Act and confirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Appeal No. 662/2010, rejecting petitioner's appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 3. For petitioner argued is that undisputably, petitioner is a juvenile, therefore, mandatory like are provisions for allowing him bail and unless very specific pertinent reasons exist he is to be enlarged on bail. Thrustly argued is that learned lower Courts without any cogent reasons and material concluded of possibility of delinquent entering into smuggling of opium and defeating ends of justice. Argues that only on the basis of this alleged recovery of narcotics substance, no adverse inference of nature mentioned in Section 12 of the Act are to be taken and irrespective of the nature of alleged act (for which chargesheet presented) is to be allowed bail particularly when presented through and by natural guardian father. Also submitted that necessary appropriate terms and conditions for eliminating any future untoward activity can be imposed. Arguing for bail, in support of arguments, learned counsel relied on decision (a) 2008(2) Cr.L.R (Raj.) 1335 (b) 2007 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 254 (c) 2006(1) R.Cr.D. 323 (Raj.) (d) 2009 (1) R.Cr.D. 316 (Raj.). 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposing bail states of recovery of 8 kg opium. 5. In light of argument raised had a look at the chargesheet copies of which submitted. Date of incident is said to be 27.11.79 and petitioner's juvenility not appear to be questioned. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposing bail states of recovery of 8 kg opium. 5. In light of argument raised had a look at the chargesheet copies of which submitted. Date of incident is said to be 27.11.79 and petitioner's juvenility not appear to be questioned. Section 12 of the Act reads as:- Bail of juvenile- (1) when any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being, in force, be released on bail with or without surety [or placed under supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution of fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that release is like 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." 6. Above provisions also seen with the citations and other precedents available seems providing normally for allowing the bail unless within ambit of exceptions indicating reasonably appear that allowing bail likely to be (i) driving him into association with criminals (ii) exposing to mental physical or psychological danger or to (iii) defeat the ends of justice. Not coming within above, bail to be allowed notwithstanding any other provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Substantially thrusted for petitioner is that no material whatsoever indicating of any reason justifying refusal to bail is. For this also is thrusted upon no bad report about antecedents of the petitioner. 8. As is observed, normally bail is to be allowed but also circumstances and situations etc when the same can be declined and are specific in the provisions. Antecedents whatever, are relevant and useful for arriving conclusions but consideration of the nature of incident even if solitary one and circumstances is not totally disallowed. It will be stretching too far to say that nature, intensity, effect, consequences of the act absolutely or any eventuality not to be taken into consideration. 9. Antecedents whatever, are relevant and useful for arriving conclusions but consideration of the nature of incident even if solitary one and circumstances is not totally disallowed. It will be stretching too far to say that nature, intensity, effect, consequences of the act absolutely or any eventuality not to be taken into consideration. 9. Looking to the material collected in the instant matter surfaces (i) recovery from vehicle (ii) according to vehicle registration-particulars furnished by registering authorities, vehicle in the name of petitioner (iii) juvenile driving vehicle no other attributed or alleged to be accompanying who. Alleged is attempting to run away alighting from vehicle (v) recovery said to be from a box below hood in two packets totalling 8.00 kg of narcotics substance opium and for him per report registered is FIR No. 188/09 i.e. prior to this incident for offence of Ss. 279, 337 IPC. 10. Above do bring to fore so many aspects and very indicative of possibility of effects likely on being enlarged on bail. Words "defeating the ends of justice" by itself empower the Board and are meant to rule out any possibility as described in the provisions governing bail to juvenile. Allowing bail- subject to exceptions like-but not mandatory and always depends on facts, circumstances and situations with surrounding factors. As observed elements appearing on the face of it clearly precipitates that not appropriate is to allow bail. Possibility of involving the juvenile in such activities cannot be eliminated. 11. As above also will appear that as delinquent was driving the vehicle either he was having a valid licence or he was driving without a licence. The enactment is beneficial for the juvenile and so interpretation is to be given but) including for welfare of the juvenile. Simultaneously is to be taken care that juvenile is not put to exploitation rather so is to be reasonably ascertained. Specific mention is not to release if like to driving him into association of criminals or exposing to any moral, physical or psychological danger or that release would defeat the ends of justice. It is also to be seen that children are not used in conduct of any illegal activity, more particularly, narcotics drugs and psychotropic substance. Also is to be extended protection from economic exploitation or any other. 12. In view of above, revision fails and is to be rejected. It is also to be seen that children are not used in conduct of any illegal activity, more particularly, narcotics drugs and psychotropic substance. Also is to be extended protection from economic exploitation or any other. 12. In view of above, revision fails and is to be rejected. However, as date of incident is of November, 2009, therefore and also keeping in view other provisions of the Act every possible endeavour be to expedite the proceedings.