NAND KISHORE Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(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 1/6/2006 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 behaviour 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 thriving 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 neighbourhood 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 behaviour 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.