NARESH NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Miss. Ratho, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. Mishra, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel.

(2.) The present Petitioner is involved in an offence under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code in Chhendipada P.S. Case No. 223 of 2007 corresponding to CT. Case No. 2376 of 2007 pending before the C.J.M. -cum -P.M.J.C., Angul. On completion of investigation, charge -sheet has been submitted against him and Ors. on 08.04.2008 under Sec. 302/34 Indian Penal Code. He filed a petition for bail before the Learned C.J.M. -cum -P.M.J.C., Angul. The prayer for bail was rejected by C.J.M. -cum -P.M.J.C., Angul on 28.03.2008. Against that order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal under Sec. 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 registered as Juvenile Crl. Appeal No. 13 of 2008. But the Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the same with the finding that all the three brothers including the present Petitioner, who is a minor, had committed murder of their father, and that the mother of the Petitioner, who is alive and is the natural guardian of the Petitioner, has not come up with any application for taking the responsibility of the Petitioner.

(3.) Miss. Ratho, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a juvenile and staying in the juvenile home. Her mother, who is the immediate guardian of the Petitioner, is interested to take custody of the juvenile and look after him. No ingredients of Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code has been fulfilled and there is no specific allegation against the Petitioner. Rather, if the Petitioner is allowed to remain in the juvenile home, there is chance of mixing with known criminals, which may cause psychological danger to him. Thus, his detention in the home would ultimately affect his future. Therefore, she prays that in the interest of justice, the Petitioner may be released on bail. Learned Counsel further submits that release of the juvenile on bail is a rule. In support of her contentions, she relied on the decisions in Abrahim Kristian and Anr. v/s. State of Orissa,, 1989 (I) OLR 89; Sandeep v/s. State of Chhatisgarh,, 2007 (I) Crimes 705; Deepak Kumar v/s. State of U.P.,, 2003 (2) Crimes 53 and Amit v/s. State of Haryana,, 2007 (3) Crimes 752 (P&H).