TARSEM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision has been filed by Tarsem, who is accused in case FIR No. 158 dated 6.9.2004 under Sections 376, 363, 366, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Narwana, against the order dated 2.3.2006, passed by Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 18.1.2006, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hisar, rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, has been dismissed.

(2.) IN this case, on a complaint made by Ramdia, father of the prosecutrix Sonia, the aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioner and one Sanjay, on the allegation that Sonia was abducted by the accused persons. Subsequently, the girl was recovered and she made the statement that she was raped by the petitioner. The petitioner, in this case, was arrested on 7.9.2004. At the time of the alleged occurrence, he was less than 18 years of age. Vide order dated 3.6.2005, passed by Sessions Judge, Jind, the petitioner was declared juvenile. Thereafter, he filed an application for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, which was rejected on 9.8.2005. Thereafter, he filed second bail application, which was dismissed on 18.1.2006. Against that order, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 52 of the Act, which has been dismissed by Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide order dated 2.3.2006, while observing as under :-

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 7.9.2004. He was juvenile on the date of the alleged occurrence as was so found by the Sessions Judge, Jind, vide order dated 3.6.2005. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, while rejecting the bail application filed by the petitioner has completely ignored the order dated 3.6.2005, passed by Sessions Judge, Jind, and has wrongly observed that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner was studying in school and was a juvenile at the time of the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel submits that under Section 12 of the Act, granting of bail to a juvenile is mandatory and the same can be denied only if it appears that his release 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. Counsel contends that none of these facts exists in the present case and the Courts below have denied bail to the petitioner only on the ground that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious and his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while considering the case of a juvenile for bail, the Court should not sway with the nature of the offence committed by the juvenile. The bail should not be denied to the juvenile on the ground of gravity of offence. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decision of this Court in Sham Lal and another v. State of Haryana, 2004(4) Recent Criminal Cases 424 where this Court in similar circumstances has granted bail to the juvenile, who was alleged to have committed gang rape.