Gujarat High Court
Vruttik Ashokbhai Patel Through ... vs State Of Gujarat on 9 May, 2018
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
R/CR.RA/270/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 270 of 2018
=========================================================
VRUTTIK ASHOKBHAI PATEL THROUGH ASHOKBHAI GANPATBHAI
PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR KL PANDYA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 09/05/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State.
2. Petitioner is a juvenile and has been allegedly found to be in conflict with law under sections 305, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short 'IPC'). Having failed to convince the Board and the appellate court under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Act, 2015 for bail this revision application is filed.
3. Having considered the rival contentions, it is found that after noticing a prima facie case against the juvenile, the bail came to be denied to him both by the Board and the appellate court, principally on the ground that he has played active role in the offence and the parental control on him is missing and admission of the applicant to bail may lead to his committing similar offence and the bail order would be an Page 1 of 4 R/CR.RA/270/2018 ORDER encouragement for him to commit a wrong again. Courts below have also found the general public ire and the uproar from the complainant's side as a circumstance by which the life of juvenile may be endangered, if admitted to bail. The courts below have also come to the conclusion that it is not in the interest of the juvenile to leave him to the care and protection of his parents and that institutional counseling is necessary for the juvenile.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this court to section 306 read with section 107 of the Indian Penal Code to contend that none of the ingredients required for the purpose of establishing the offence under said provisions are made out even if the FIR is taken at the face value. It was contended that even if the said ingredients are made out, bail is a rule and its denial is an exception subject to proviso to section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act. He would contend that none of the courts below infact inquired into the facts contemplated in the said proviso and have based their order on imagination.
5. Learned APP has contended that a serious most case against the juvenile for teasing the girl child and threatening her to upload her photographs with him, on the multimedia, as a consequence of which, the girl child committed the suicide, is made out. It was contended that the courts below have rightly concluded that the juvenile has actively participated in the offence and thus parental control on him was missing and there was likelihood of his repeating the offence.
6. Learned APP contended that the mother of the victim has given a clear statement that the juvenile was consistently harassing her because of which, victim consumed her life.
Page 2 of 4R/CR.RA/270/2018 ORDER
7. To answer the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to refer section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Subsection (1) mandates bail for the juvenile with or without surety. While admitting the juvenile to bail, he may be placed under the supervision of probation officer or under the care of any fit person, if the Board finds that the interest of the juvenile would be better served under the supervision of probation officer or under the care of any fit person. The denial of bail would consequent into an order sending the juvenile to observation home or a place of safety as may be necessary, for a specified period during the pendencey of the inquiry against the juvenile, as may be specified in the order of the Board. There is also mandate to deny the bail to juvenile, in proviso to subsection (1), on reasonable belief that his release is likely to bring that person into association of known criminal or that he would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of the justice. The Board is obliged to record the reasons for denial as also the circumstances leading to such decision.
8. Having regard to the language used in proviso to subsection (1) of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, it can safely be stated that for fettering the right of juvenile to bail, the Board would be required to record the reasons based upon the material brought on record. The reason for denial of bail for the juvenile cannot be imaginary. It appears from the above quoted reasons that the conclusion by the authorities below, that parental control on the juvenile is lacking and the apprehension that in the event of admitting the juvenile to bail, he may resort to similar such offence or that he will be encouraged to commit similar such offence, if bail is granted and that the public ire and the Page 3 of 4 R/CR.RA/270/2018 ORDER agitation from the complainant's side would endanger the life of the juvenile, are not at all based upon the material with the authorities below. The reasons for denial of the bail thus seems to be imaginary.
9. It is noticed from the section 8(3)(e) and Section 13(1)(ii) that the Board is empowered to call for a social investigation report within a period of fifteen days from the date of first production of juvenile, before it, to ascertain the circumstances leading to the juvenile conflicting the law. In absence of the reference to such report, this court would presume that no such report was in existence at the time of passing of the impugned order by the Board/appellate court.
10. In the opinion of this court the impugned orders, for the foregoing reasons cannot be sustained. The same are therefore, quashed and set aside with the direction to the Board under the Act to reconsider the case of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of the receipt of the writ of this Court in accordance with law, on the basis of the cogent material on record.
11. It will be open for the Board to call for the social investigation report as contemplated in sections 8 and 13 as indicated above for the purpose.
12. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J) niru* Page 4 of 4