Delhi High Court
Nand Kishore (In Jc) vs State on 7 July, 2006
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed
JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 26.6.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 01.06.2006 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board dismissing the petitioner's bail application was rejected. There is no dispute that the petitioner herein is a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection ) Act, 2000. Therefore, with regard to the grant of bail, the provisions of Section 12 of the said Act would be applicable. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that as a rule bail is to be granted under Section 12 unless the case falls in one of the exceptions carved out in the Section itself. He submitted that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptions and although the impugned order indicates that the release of the petitioner would bring him in association with known criminals. There is no basis for giving this finding as he submitted that it has not been pointed out as to who the known criminals were with whom the petitioner would associate with if released on bail. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this was a fit case in which the petitioner ought to be released on bail.
2. The learned Counsel for the State supported the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board whereby the petitioner has been denied bail. She also submitted that the petitioner displayed impulsive behavior and the community influence was quite substantial and as indicated in the order of the learned Sessions Judge the community was unstable. She submitted that one of the accused in the present case is said to have been involved in another murder case.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the parties and I have also gone through the social investigation report which has been made with respect to the present petitioner. On going through the said report, I find that there is nothing in the same which could be said to be adverse to the petitioner. It is noted in the said report that the petitioner's father has a Kabari shop and he has an earning of about Rs.7000/- per month. The mother is a house wife and he has one brother and two sisters who are students of Pooja Convent School, Uttam Nagar. The present petitioner was also a student of class 8 of the same school. It is indicated in the social investigation report that most of the family members seemed well mannered and that the social acceptance of the family appeared to be good and the living pattern of the family was very cohesive and developmental. It is observed that the children are all studying in school and the parents share a good understanding amongst themselves. It is noted that the economic status is stable although the family is not economically well of. It was also noted that there is no criminal antecedent of any of the family members and that there is a good and healthy environment at home. As regards the characteristic and personality of the petitioner, the social investigating report indicates that he is outspoken and impressive. The neighborhood report is also positive about the family as well as the petitioner. With regard to the parents attitude towards discipline at home, the report indicates that the parents attitude towards discipline of the children at home seemed constructive. The children seemed to listen to the parents and regularly attend school. The petitioner also claimed that he regularly went to school and listened to his parents. However, on an analysis of how the problem could have arisen, although the incident is denied by the juvenile, the report indicates that it could possibly be circumstantial factors, impulsive behavior and community influence. In the final recommendation, the social investigating report indicates that the juvenile was a regular student and it was noteworthy that in a resettlement colony, the family was making efforts to educate the children. The report indicates that the juvenile needs to be given more understanding to develop his academic status and that regular supervision of the family in a more positive manner is recommended.
4. As indicated above, the social investigating report does not contain anything which goes against the release of the petitioner. However, the courts below came to a completely different conclusion. There is nothing in the impugned order which would indicate as to who are the known criminals with whom the petitioner would be associated with in case he is released on bail. I find that this observation is without any basis whatsoever. As observed in the case of Manoj alias Kali v The State (NCT of Delhi) Crl. Rev. P. 178/2996 decided on 2.6.2006, a juvenile has to be released on bail mandatorily unless and until the exceptions carved out in the section itself are made out. The exceptions being:
a) a reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal;
b) his release is likely to expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger; and
c) his release would defeat the ends of justice.
5. Insofar as the latter two exceptions are concerned, that is not in issue in the present case. As regards the first exception, before it can be invoked to deny bail to a juvenile there must be a reasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal. The expression known criminal is not without significance. When the liberty of a juvenile is sought to be curtailed by employing the exception, the exception must be construed strictly. Therefore, before this exception is invoked, the prosecution must identify the `known criminal' and then the court must have reasonable grounds to believe that the juvenile, if released on bail, would associate with this known criminal. It cannot be generally observed that the release of the juvenile would bring him into association with criminals without identifying the criminals and without returning a, prima facie, finding with regard to the nexus between the juvenile and such criminal. This has not been done in the present case, therefore, the petitioner's case does not fall within the aforesaid exceptions which, necessarily implies that the petitioner is entitled to bail.
6. This revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on the petitioner's father furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner's father who is present in court has stated that he will take good care of the petitioner and shall ensure that he continues with his education in right earnest and that he shall not fall into any bad company whatsoever. An affidavit to this effect shall be filed by the petitioner's father within three days.
This revision petition stands disposed of.
dusty.