MANGAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LA. No. 1/2008 is allowed. Documents are taken on record. 2 This revision is directed against the order dated 22. 8. 2008 passed by the Sessions Judge Rajnandgaon in Criminal Appeal no. 24/2008 affirming the order dated 13. 8. 2008 passed by the Juvenile Justice board, Rajnandgaon whereby the Juvenile justice Board has rejected the application for grant of bail filed by the Juvenile. 3. Legality and propriety of the order is challenged on the ground that the Court below has not considered the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act' ). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant who is aged about 17 years has been charged with the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I. PC, for committing rape on a woman aged about 21 years. The applicant is in custody since 6. 8. 2008. He is a juvenile and entitled for bail in terms of Section 12 of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecutrix was examined by the doctor within three days of the incident i. e. on 5. 8. 2008, but no recent injury was found over her private parts. According to the prosecution, this is a case of complete intercourse and absence of any injury over private parts of the prosecutrix who according to the case of the prosecution is an unmarried lady, creates doubt upon the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matters of Cr. Revision no. 113/2008, Jitendra Kumar Sahare alias konda v. State of Chhattisgarh, passed by this Court on 9. 4. 2008 and Prakash v. State of Rajasthan. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the order impugned and submitted that the applicant has committed heinous offence of rape and if he is released on bail he is likely to come into association with known criminal. 7. The Court below has rejected the application for grant of bail filed on behalf of the accused and also rejected the appeal on the ground that after his release he may commit/repeat the same offence. Admittedly, the applicant is aged about 17 years i. e. below the age of 18 years. The provisions of Section 12 of the Act, relating to bail of the juvenile are mandatory in nature and normally he shall be released unless there is likelihood of his association with known criminal or chance to expose into moral physical and psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 8. In the instant case, the applicant is in custody since 6. 8. 2008, he is aged about 17 years and the prosecution has not collected any material to show that after release of the accused, he may be associated with known criminal or there is any chance to expose into moral, physical and psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. In absence of any ground for denial of bail available under Section 12 of the Act, denial/rejection of bail is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. The Court below has committed illegality by not releasing the applicant on bail. Consequently, the order impugned is not sustainable. 9. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order impugned is hereby set aside. It is directed that in the event of applicant's furnishing a solvent surety of Rs. 10,000 to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice board for his regular appearance, the applicant shall be released on bail. 10. Certified copy as per rules. Petition allowed.