DEVESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.3.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is an appeal against the rejection of the bail application by the Juvenile Justice Board on 13.3.2006. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has denied bail to the present petitioner who is admittedly a juvenile on the ground that his release is likely to bring him in the company of criminals. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, this itself would defeat the purpose of releasing him on bail. The reasoning adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is demonstrated by the following extract from the impugned order :

(2.) Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides that the juvenile is to be released on bail unless it can be shown that his release is likely to bring him into association with ?any known criminal?or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Thus, as is apparent from a reading of Section 12 there must be a reasonable ground for believing that the juvenile's release would bring him into association with ?known?criminals. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has merely conjectured that the release of the petitioner might bring him in contact with criminals not ?known criminals?, on the basis of an assumption that some of his companions have not been arrested and those companions are criminals. I am afraid that this is not the right approach to take while construing Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. When the expression used is ?any known criminal? then the Court should give full meaning to that expression.

(3.) In any event, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued on merits to show that the juvenile has no specific role to play in the alleged murder. Even as per the case of the prosecution, neither did the juvenile commit the murder nor did he catch hold the deceased nor he was responsible for the injuries. The only injuries recorded in the postmortem are knife injuries. Even otherwise the petitioner would be entitled to bail although more so as he is a juvenile.