Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 579 (PAT)

Ashish Kumar Bharti v. State of Bihar

2013-05-02

RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed this criminal revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, against the order dated 01.04.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Katihar, in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2013, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar dismissed the aforesaid criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 07.03.2013 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Katihar rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for bail in connection with G.R. No. 3282 of 2012 arising out of Katihar (M) P.S. Case No. 186 of 2012, registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on being declared juvenile-in-conflict with law the petitioner prayed for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Katihar and his prayer for bail was rejected on 07.03.2013. Thereafter the petitioner filed the Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2013 against the said order which has also been dismissed through the impugned order by the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar only taking into consideration the nature of offence without assigning reasonable ground which is against the spirit of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 4. On bare perusal of provision of Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, it appears that Juvenile in conflict with law shall be released on bail unless 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. The existence of the aforesaid ground should not mean guesswork but it should be supported by some evidence on record. 5. The impugned order shows that the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar dismissed the criminal appeal of the petitioner through the impugned order arriving at conclusion that release of the petitioner on bail is likely to expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice without detailing the evidence or report in this respect. As such, the refusal of the bail of the petitioner was unjustified and against the intention of the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this criminal revision is allowed and impugned Judgment dated 01.04.2013 is set aside. The above named petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Katihar in connection with Katihar (Muffassil) P.S. Case No. 186 of 2012. Subject to the condition that out of two sureties one surety must be parent who will also give an undertaking to the effect that he/she will take care to the petitioner so that petitioner may not indulge in bad association.