VIKKI TIWARI Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. This criminal revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against order dated 04-02-2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2015 whereby order dated 21-01-15 passed by the Chief Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajnandgaon rejecting petitioner's application under Section 12 of the Act has been confirmed.

(2.) Assailing the correctness and validity of the order dated 21-01-2015 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the order passed in appeal by the appellate Court, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the rejection of application for grant of bail is wholly illegal. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, in case of alleged commission of offence by a Juvenile, ordinarily, bail has to be granted and the statutory mandate not to release will operate only when there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he 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.

(3.) On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that while rejecting applicant's application under Section 12 of the Act, no illegality has been committed by the Juvenile Justice Board, as the Court below has considered only relevant considerations in order to form an opinion against release of the applicant that such release would defeat the ends of justice. Further submission of learned State counsel is that the learned lower appellate Court has also considered this aspect and taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, has recorded that release of the applicant would bring him into association with any known criminal and also expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Learned State counsel argued that the circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have been committed itself show that the Juvenile was not living in a healthy company, and therefore, if he is allowed to be released, it would not be in his interest for the reasons stated in the order passed by the Board as well as by the appellate Court.