Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1139 (HP)

Sahab Singh v. State of H. P.

2018-06-21

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The apposite application, as, preferred by the applicant/accused, before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Solan, District Solan, H.P., seeking therein relief, of, his being released from judicial custody, where he is lodged, for his allegedly committing offences, punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, in case FIR No. 192/17 of 15.9.2017, stood rejected by the aforesaid, and, in an appeal preferred therefrom before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, the latter, also declined relief to the bail applicant, hence the instant petition. 2. The apt provisions, borne, in Section 12, of, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, provision whereof, is, extracted hereinafter, confer a special statutory right, upon a juvenile offender, to, dehors any fettering provisions, existing, in the Cr.P.C., against the affording of indulgence, of, bail, vis-à-vis him, for his allegedly committing, a non-bailable heinous offence, to rather in consonance therewith, hence, espouse relief, of his being enlarged on bail, even vis-à-vis any non-bailable heinous offence, and, importantly upon satiation, of, the all apt condition precedents borne in sub-section (1) thereof, whereupon , hence the Courts of law, are, enjoined to release him on bail, with or without surety :- “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 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 be brought before a Board. (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 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.” However, the aforesaid statutory power and jurisdiction, as, bestowed upon Courts of law, is subject, to, the condition, (i) of there appearing no reasonable grounds for believing, of, hence his being likely to be brought into association with any known criminal, (ii) nor there appearing any reasonable ground for believing of his being hence exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release defeating the ends of justice, (ii) The learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, had, in paragraph-7, para whereof is extracted hereinafter, hence concluded, that the initial aforestated imperative condition, embodied in Section 12 of the Act, comprised in the factum of there being hence likelihood, of the juvenile offender being brought into association with any known criminal, rather remaining unsatiated. However, the succeeding thereto apt conditions precedent also enjoining their apt satiation, and, comprised in there appearing no reasonable grounds, for believing qua upon his being released from custody, his being imminently exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release defeating the ends of justice, (i) quathereupon both the courts had concluded of there rather appearing a reasonable ground, for believing of hence his being exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger, thereupon both the courts hence declined the apt facility, to the bail applicant. The reasons prevailing with the learned courts below, for their making, the aforesaid conclusion is anvilled, upon the possibility, of, the outrage, of, the members of the family of the victim, pointedly upon being released, rather being sparked, concomitantly, hence there being imminent likelihood, of his being exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. The reasons prevailing with the learned courts below, for their making, the aforesaid conclusion is anvilled, upon the possibility, of, the outrage, of, the members of the family of the victim, pointedly upon being released, rather being sparked, concomitantly, hence there being imminent likelihood, of his being exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. The tenacity, of, the aforesaid reasons, in both, the courts making the aforesaid conclusion, is to be tested, upon existence of firm material, adduced therebefore by the prosecution, displaying therein, of, all the aforestated dangers being visitable, upon, the juvenile offender, (ii) thereupon alone it could be concluded, of there being sufficient material, with both the learned courts below, to, conclude of there appearing reasonable ground, for hence believing qua the aforesaid endanger besetting the juvenile offender, upon, his being released from custody. However, the apposite material did not exist, before the learned courts below, thereupon the mandate of the aforestated condition precedents, as attracted, against the juvenile offender, and, as also led the courts below, to, decline the apposite relief, to the juvenile offender appears to be both surmisical, and, conjectural : “In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that release of juvenile is likely to bring him into association of any known criminal, therefore, the ground of denial of bail for juvenile does not exist. However, other 2 grounds mentioned above seem to have been existing because firstly, since, the juvenile allegedly has committed the offence of murder, the anger amongst the relatives, friends, well-wisher of the deceased can not be ruled out and if juvenile is released on bail, in that eventuality, the harm can be caused to the juvenile by members of society due to alleged offence. Therefore, release of juvenile in the considered opinion of the board can expose him to physical danger. Secondly, since, the juvenile has allegedly committed capital offence and as per police version, after committing the same, he escaped from the spot, the possibility cannot be ruled out that since juvenile is belonging to another State, his presence might be difficult to procure during inquiry which will not be conducive for interest of justice.” 4. Mr. Secondly, since, the juvenile has allegedly committed capital offence and as per police version, after committing the same, he escaped from the spot, the possibility cannot be ruled out that since juvenile is belonging to another State, his presence might be difficult to procure during inquiry which will not be conducive for interest of justice.” 4. Mr. Vikrant Chandel, the learned Deputy Advocate General has also submitted before this Court, that, upon the juvenile offender being released from the custody, there is no material, qua thereupon there being every likelihood of the apposite endangerments hence ensuing, vis-à-vis, the person, of, the juvenile offender, (iii) thereupon with there being no material, to make a firm conclusion qua upon the juvenile being released, from judicial custody, there appearing reasonable grounds, for, believing qua hence there being every likelihood of his being exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. Consequently the juvenile is ordered to be released from custody, subject to compliance by him with the following conditions :- (i) That he shall furnish personal bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount, of, persons holding property in the State of Himachal Pradesh, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (ii) That he shall continuously, during the period of his being enlarged on bail, remain under the supervision of the District Welfare Officer, District Rampur, U.P. (iii) That he shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating agency. (iv) That he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police. (v) That he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. (vi) That he shall deposit his passports, if any, with the Police Station, concerned. (vii) He shall manage to reside at least five k.m. away from the residence of the victim. (viii) That in case of violation of any of the conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be forfeited and he shall be liable to be taken into custody. 5. In view of the above directions, the instant petition as well as all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.