MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by juvenile Manmohan Singh, who is now confined in Observation Home, Shimla Puri, Ludhiana for setting aside the order dated 26.9.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Court, Ludhiana vide which the application of the petitioner for releasing him on bail was declined and the order dated 11.10.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which appeal against the said order was dismissed. The Courts below declined the bail to the petitioner on the ground that there is apprehension that the release of the petitioner on bail would expose him to moral and physical danger as no elderly person is available to took after him.

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, the petitioner along his brother, armed with Kirpans, Kulwant Singh, armed with gandasi and his mother Gurjit Kaur, armed with thapi, alleged to have caused injuries to deceased Kuldeep Singh son of Tarlok Singh.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted that both the aforesaid reasons recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are unsustainable and on the basis of the same, the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on bail cannot be rejected as it is mandatory for the Juvenile Court to release the juvenile on bail notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force. She further submitted that under Section 12 of the Act, bail can be declined to a juvenile if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. She further submitted that apprehension of the Courts below to the effect that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would expose himself to moral and physical danger having no elderly person to look after him, is wholly without any basis as the grandfather and maternal uncle of the petitioner are always available at home to look after him. In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P., 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 559. She further submitted that merely because the petitioner is alleged to have caused injuries to the deceased by Kirpan the benefit of concession of bail, as provided in the aforesaid Section, cannot be denied. If such interpretation is accepted then the very purpose of enacting Section 12 of the Act will be defeated.