Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 639 (RAJ)

Om Singh @ Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-03-28

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2010, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Magistrate has denied bail to the petitioner, and aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2010, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 29.05.2010, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 19.05.2010, Kishan Singh lodged a report at Police Station Nadbai, wherein he claimed that he along with his nephew, Ravindra, were standing near his motorcycle. While on their way to Kheri Devi Singh they stopped to drink water near Mai village. At that time, the petitioner came there on a tractor. The petitioner told Ravindra that he will not spare him today. He dashed the tractor against Ravindra and ran over Ravindra's body. He subsequently back tracked the tractor over Ravindra's body. Therefore, Ravidnra died on the spot. Upon that report, the police chalked out a formal FIR, FIR No.216/2010, for offence under Section 302 IPC and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was taken into custody. Subsequently, the petitioner moved a bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('the Act', for short) before the learned Magistrate. However, vide order dated 29.05.2010, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an appeal under Section 52 of the Act before the learned Judge. However, vide order dated 26.11.2010, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Piyush Pani Mathur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that the police has already filed challan on 10.08.2010; the petitioner has been under judicial custody for almost one year. Secondly, the learned Magistrate has rejected the bail on the ground of gravity of the offence. However, under Section 12 of the Act, the gravity of the offence cannot be looked into. In fact, both the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the grant of bail is a mandatory condition under Section 12 of the Act. Secondly, the learned Magistrate has rejected the bail on the ground of gravity of the offence. However, under Section 12 of the Act, the gravity of the offence cannot be looked into. In fact, both the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the grant of bail is a mandatory condition under Section 12 of the Act. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that in case the petitioner were released on bail, he would go back to the company of known or unknown criminals, or such a release would expose him to mental, physical and psychological danger. Lastly, releasing the petitioner would not defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, the bail should be granted to the petitioner. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Rahul Mishra v. State of M.P., 2001 Cr.L.J. 214 (M.P.) and Virendra Kumar & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2009 (2) Crimes 7 (Chhatt.) . 4. On the other hand, Mr. Laxman Meena, the learned Public Prosecutor, and Mr. Sudhir Jain, the learned counsel for the complainant, have both contended that a gruesome murder has been committed by the petitioner. Moreover, according to Mr. Jain, the term "to defeat the ends of justice" should not only be interpreted from the point of view of the accused, but more so from the point of view of the victim and the society. In a case of murder, it is the victim and the society, who call out for justice to be done. In case, the petitioner were to be released on bail after having committed murder, such a release would shock the conscience of the society and would undermine the faith of the victim in the judiciary and in the judicial process. Therefore, the petitioner should not be granted the benefit of bail. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 6. It is, indeed, a misnomer that Section 12 of the Act is a mandatory process. Section 12 of the Act is as under : 12. Therefore, the petitioner should not be granted the benefit of bail. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 6. It is, indeed, a misnomer that Section 12 of the Act is a mandatory process. Section 12 of the Act is as under : 12. 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 the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds 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. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order. 7. Thus, although the bail may be a rule, but under three circumstances, the benefit of bail can be denied to the juvenile delinquent : if it is shown that he keeps company with known or unknown criminals, if his release would expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger, or in case it would defeat the ends of justice. 8. Justice is neither a one way street, nor is it limited only to the accused. 8. Justice is neither a one way street, nor is it limited only to the accused. While rule of law demands that the accused be provided a fair trial, rule of law also dictates that the victim should have the feelings that justice has not only been done, but also appears to be done to him / her. If justice were not done to the victim, the victim would lose faith in the rule of law. Similarly, since crime is an act against the society, if justice were not done with the society, society's faith in the judiciary would be shattered. Therefore, the judiciary must balance the interest of the individual, of the accused, on the one hand, with the interest of the victim and the society, on the other hand. Although it is true that the gravity of an offence cannot be the deciding factor, but while trying to administer justice, the Court must be conscious of the nature of the offence. It would be one of the factors to be kept in mind while trying to impart justice to the accused, and to the victim, in particular, and to the society in general. 9. The Juvenile Justice Act is not meant to be used as a revolving door by the juvenile delinquent. Juvenile delinquent cannot argue that once he has committed a grave offence, he must be permitted to be released on bail so as to permit him to commit further crime. One of the aims of the Juvenile Justice Act is to reform the juvenile delinquent so that he is prevented from graduating to being a hardened criminal. This process of reform cannot be done by releasing the juvenile delinquent. He/she can be reformed only in an institutional setting. Therefore, the denial of a bail to the juvenile delinquent and keeping him within the judicial custody is not a denial of his personal liberty or life. In fact, if he can be reformed, if he can be taught techniques and trade to earn a living, if he can be treated psychologically, if he can be reformed to the point that upon his release, he will become a contributory member of the society, such a detention would be both in his interest and in the interest of the society. 10. In the present case, allegedly a young boy has been killed by the petitioner. 10. In the present case, allegedly a young boy has been killed by the petitioner. The family of Ravindra needs to be kept in mind while dealing with the bail application of the petitioner. In case, the petitioner were to be released, obviously not only the feelings of the family, but the conscience of the society would be shaken. Hence, the ends of justice would necessarily be defeated. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner. 11. Hence, this petition is, hereby, dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******