Delhi High Court
Ravi-Ul-Islam vs State (Nct) on 5 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007CRILJ612, 129(2006)DLT595, 2007 CRI. L. J. 612, (2006) 44 ALLINDCAS 157 (DEL), 2006 (44) ALLINDCAS 157, 2006 (55) ALLCRIC 86 SOC, (2006) 129 DLT 595
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed
JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
Page 1911
1. This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 29.11.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 27.10.2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Delhi was dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the present revision petition are that a charge-sheet under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in respect of FIR No. 568/2004 was filed against the petitioner. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.11.2004, the petitioner was found in possession of 1.820 kgs of Charas. It is further pointed out that a sample of 80 grams was taken out and the same was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for testing which was subsequently found to be Charas. Page 1912 On 14.12.2004, the petitioner had moved an application for transfer of the proceedings to the Juvenile Justice Board inasmuch as the petitioner claimed to be a juvenile. That application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi by an order dated 05.02.2005. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a Criminal Revision Petition [No.145/2005] in this court. By an order dated 27.09.2005, the said Criminal Revision Petition [No.145/2005] was allowed and the order dated 05.02.2005 was set aside and the entire matter was remanded to be dealt with in accordance with law. It was also clearly directed by this Court by virtue of the order dated 27.09.2005 that the Juvenile (petitioner) is bound to be dealt with by and under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act').
3. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board and that application was dismissed by the said Board by an order dated 27.10.2005. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. The same has been dismissed by the order dated 29.11.2005 which is impugned herein.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the grant of bail under Section 12 of the said Act is mandatory unless the conditions requiring the court not to grant bail specified in the Section itself are satisfied. He pointed out that in the impugned order, apart from a simple statement that the release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice, there is nothing to substantiate or to back this finding. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, reading through the Social Investigation Report, submitted that it does not disclose any fact which could lead one to the conclusion that releasing the petitioner, who is a juvenile, would result in the defeat of ends of justice.
5. The Social Investigation Report is in favor of the juvenile being released. The Report reveals that the family consists of the father, mother and elder brother of the juvenile and they are all earning members and they altogether earn about Rs. 10,500/- per month. It is also pointed out that prior to the petitioner's arrest, he was doing embroidery work and that the family is socially recognised in the locality and the community. Although the delinquency record of the family members shows that the father and elder brother of the juvenile had another case registered against them under Sections 308/328/34 IPC, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has shown me a certified copy of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi whereby they have been acquitted. The report also reveals that the parents of the juvenile are "very much concerned" about his welfare and that all the other family members, including the elder brother would take full responsibility of the juvenile in future. It is noted that the juvenile's habits are that he plays cricket, watches television some times and no bad habit was indicated. The report clearly states that no criminal traits have been reported in his personality during the course of interview. Even the neighbours, who have been interviewed, have given a satisfactory report about the behavior and conduct of the juvenile. Under the heading "Analysis of the case giving an idea", it has been indicated that the juvenile denies the charges of the present Page 1913 case and states that he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is also indicated that the juvenile has promised to lead a law abiding citizen's life and the parents have also promised to take proper care of the juvenile in future and also to take suitable steps to counsel and guide him.
6. Looking at the Social Investigation Report, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the release of the juvenile would bring him into association of any known criminal or expose him to any physical or moral danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Accordingly, in view of the specific provisions of Section 12 of the said Act, the petitioner would be clearly entitled to be released on bail.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted on merits that the petitioner would be entitled to bail in any event inasmuch as the sample alleged to have been taken was of 80 gms, whereas the FSL Report indicates that it had examined a sample sent to it which was 61 gms in weight. According to him, this in itself would be fatal to the prosecution and would definitely entitle the petitioner to be released on bail even under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. However, the learned Counsel for the State submitted that the merits of the matter are not in consideration here inasmuch as the only consideration that is to be taken into account is for the purposes of Section 12 of the said Act. I am in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the State and I do not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
8. Before parting with this case, I would also like to point out that the learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, Rajinder Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. and Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. JT 2005 (2) 271 to indicate that the said Act is a beneficial legislation for the benefit of the juvenile and the Act must be construed as such. In this line, when Section 12 makes it mandatory for a juvenile, even if he is "apparently a juvenile" to be released on bail, then this Court and all the courts dealing with such a situation must give full meaning to the provisions of the said Section as also the object of the Act. Bail has to be granted to a juvenile, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force which includes the NDPS Act also except for the conditions mentioned in Section 12 itself which, if one examines the same, are also to prevent any damage to the juvenile. The idea behind Section 12 being that the juvenile must be released on bail unless releasing him on bail would be detrimental to him or would entirely defeat the ends of justice.
9. I find no such detriment in the present case. The petitioner's release would also not amount to a defeat of the ends of justice. Accordingly, the impugned Page 1914 order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail upon his father furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board. The father as well as the elder brother of the juvenile shall file affidavits indicating clearly that they shall be responsible for his well-being and they shall ensure that he does not fall into bad company.
This revision petition is allowed and stands disposed of as such.
dusty.