MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE GOVT OF NCT DELH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 6.6.2006 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board rejecting the petitioner's bail application, was dismissed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner, being a juvenile, the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (hereinafter referred to as `the said Act'), would apply insofar as the question of consideration of grant of bail to the juvenile is concerned. He submits that as a rule, a juvenile has to be granted bail unless his case falls under one of the exceptions carved out in Section 12 itself. Referring to a decision of this Court in Manoj @ Kali v. The State (NCT of Delhi) delivered on 2.6.2006 in Criminal Rev. (P) 178/2006, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the 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:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and in particular, to the contents of paragraph 5 thereof, wherein it is recorded that a perusal of the Social Investigation Report reveals that the juvenile had admitted his charges. He then referred to the copy of the Social Investigation Report, where there is no such admission. On the other hand, it is clearly stated in the Social Investigation Report that the juvenile had denied his offence and that the juvenile had told the Social Investigation Officer that he has not done any wrong act with the victim. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the finding which found favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge is contrary to the record. As regards the question of the prosecutrix living in proximity to the petitioner and, therefore, there being likelihood of the situation being aggravated, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father has already given an affidavit indicating that the petitioner would be kept at a different place where the petitioner's maternal uncle resides, i.e. at Greater Kailash, New Delhi, which is at a great distance from the place where the prosecutrix resides.