Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 856 (PNJ)

Pankaj v. State of Haryana

2012-07-05

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik J.: (Oral) - Having been declined the concession of bail under Section 12 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short ‘the Act’) vide impugned order dated 21.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Rohtak, thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner filed under Section 52 of the Act against the order dated 2.2.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, exercising the powers of Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtak, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant criminal revision petition, assailing the orders dated 21.2.2012, and dated 2.2.2012. 2. Notice of motion was issued. 3. The facts of the case, when put into narrow compass, are that FIR No. 650 dated 23.11.2011 under Sections 148, 149, 324, 302 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak (Annexure P-1) was lodged on the statement of Rocky son of Dharampal against the petitioner and his another co-accused. It is pertinent to note here that complainant- Rocky was admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak and he died on 4.12.2011. Consequently, the FIR which was initially registered under Sections 148, 149, 324 IPC, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added thereto. On conclusion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the learned court of competent jurisdiction under Sections 324, 302, 34 IPC. Petitioner was put under arrest on 7.12.2011. However, since the petitioner was found less than 18 years of age, he was declared juvenile in conflict with law vide order dated 19.1.2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-cum- Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtak. 4. The petitioner filed an application seeking bail but the same was dismissed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, vide his order dated 2.2.2012, primarily because of gravity of offence. Dissatisfied with the order dated 2.2.2012, the petitioner filed his appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Rohtak, under Section 52 of the Act. 4. The petitioner filed an application seeking bail but the same was dismissed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, vide his order dated 2.2.2012, primarily because of gravity of offence. Dissatisfied with the order dated 2.2.2012, the petitioner filed his appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Rohtak, under Section 52 of the Act. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Rohtak, vide impugned order dated 21.2.2012, on the ground that there was likelihood that release of the petitioner on bail will bring him in association with some known criminals and may also expose himself to physical danger, which may defeat the ends of justice. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the above said orders passed by the learned courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant criminal revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 21.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Rohtak and also the order dated 02.02.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-cum- Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtak are patently illegal on the face of it. He submits that the learned courts below have miserably failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. Learned Magistrate has declined the bail to the petitioner referring to the gravity of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, while passing the impugned order dated 02.02.2012. He further submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide his order dated 21.02.2012, has not recorded his satisfaction on the basis of sufficient material on record that there was any apprehension of coming the petitioner in the company of known criminals. Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded by submitting that both the impugned orders are wholly unsustainable in law and the same are liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that in view of the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner he is not entitled to be released on bail granting him the benefit of Section 12 of the Act. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law for more than one reasons. 9. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law for more than one reasons. 9. The question of law that falls for consideration of this Court is as to what is the scope and true import of Section 12 of the Act and whether the learned courts below have misconstrued the same, while passing the impugned orders. 10. Having considered the matter in the given fact situation of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that it is just and expedient to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. Since the answer to the question of law posed hereinabove depends upon the interpretation of Section 12 of the Act, it would appropriate to reproduce the same which reads as under:- 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 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 incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can 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. 11. (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. 11. A bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, reproduced above, would show that the juvenile in conflict with law shall be released on bail, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other law for the time being in force, except in three contingencies specified under Section 12 (1) itself. Thus, it becomes clear that so far as the gravity of offence is concerned, the same can not be pressed into service for denying the concession of bail to juvenile under Section 12 of the Act. 12. However, it is also clear that juvenile can be denied the concession of bail, if any of the three situations specified under Section 12 (1) is available in any given fact situation. These three situations are : (i) if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal; (ii) the release will expose the juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger and; (iii) his release would defeat the ends of justice. 13. The court while denying the benefit of bail to a juvenile in conflict with law on either of the above said three grounds noted above, will record its satisfaction based on relevant material available on the record that release of the juvenile will either bring him into association with any known criminal or will expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. 14. After careful examination of the matter, this Court unhesitatingly hold that the harmonious construction of Section 12 of the Act is that the gravity of the offence is not a ground for rejection of application for bail under Section 12 of the Act. Once the legislature has not provided the gravity of the offence as one of the grounds for rejection of the bail, the bail to a juvenile cannot be denied on the ground of gravity of the offence. Once the legislature has not provided the gravity of the offence as one of the grounds for rejection of the bail, the bail to a juvenile cannot be denied on the ground of gravity of the offence. The legislative intent is clear in this regard and the provision is mandatory in nature. 15. So far as the three contingencies provided under Section 12 (1) in which the bail can be refused to the juvenile in conflict with law are concerned, the denial has to be based on reasonable grounds for believing that anyone out of three contingencies, as a matter of fact, was available, in a given fact situation. The court will record its satisfaction for denying the concession of bail to a juvenile in conflict with law under any of the above noted three contingencies, if the Court comes to the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that any of the contingency was existing and supported with the relevant material available on the record of the case. 16. The view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.2913 of 2011 titled as Jaskaranpreet Singh versus State of Punjab decided on 9.12.2011, judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Sandeep versus The State NCT of Delhi 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 146 and the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu versus State of U.P. 2010(3) Criminal Court Cases 459 (Allahabad). 17. Coming back to the facts and circumstances of the present case, neither there is any material available on record to show that any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12 (1) of the Act was existing nor anything has been mentioned by the learned courts below, in this regard. The learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, has declined the bail to the petitioner-juvenile in conflict with law, primarily in view of the gravity of the offence. Since the gravity of the offence is not one of the considerations provided under Section 12 (1) of the Act, the impugned order dated 2.2.2012, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtak, is wholly unsustainable in law. The learned Magistrate has also mentioned that release of the petitioner on bail would defeat the ends of justice. Since the gravity of the offence is not one of the considerations provided under Section 12 (1) of the Act, the impugned order dated 2.2.2012, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtak, is wholly unsustainable in law. The learned Magistrate has also mentioned that release of the petitioner on bail would defeat the ends of justice. However, there is no reference to any material available on record, which might have appeared to the learned Principal Magistrate as a reasonable ground for believing it. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Magistrate is not sustainable in law for this reason, as well. 18. So far as the order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court) Rohtak, dated 21.2.2012 is concerned, he has also failed to refer to any of the relevant materials available on record, which would appear to him as a reasonable ground for believing that the release of the petitioner would fall under either of the three contingencies under Setion 12 (1) of the Act. 19. Learned State counsel could not point out towards any such material available on the record which will substantiate the apprehension raised by the learned courts below denying the bail to the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act. 20. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below are not sustainable in law and the same are liable to be set aside. Thus, the impugned order dated 02.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtak and also the impugned order dated 21.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Rohtak are hereby, set aside. 21. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is accepted. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds by his natural guardian or near relative to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Magistrate, Rohtak. 22. However, lest the order is misunderstood, it is made clear that the learned trial court shall proceed with the trial uninfluenced with the observations made by this court so far as the merits of the case are concerned. 23. Revision petition stands allowed. ---------0.B.S.0------------