KESHWAR SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 1-4-1997 passed by CJM, Chatra who is a Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice Act through which the prayer of bail of this petitioner, Keshwar Sao, was rejected in CR Case No. 250/95.

(2.) It was contended on behalf of petitioner that in pursuance of the order dated 19th December, 1996 passed in Cr. Revision No. 245/96 (R) a regular enquiry was made by the Juvenile Court ie. the CJM. After considering the report of the medical board and other evidence the petitioner was declared as a Juvenile vide order dated 3rd March, 1997. It was further contended that when the petitioner was declared as Juvenile a prayer was made for granting bail in pursuance of Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act but this prayer was rejected mainly for the reason that the A.P.P. submitted that on earlier occasion the prayer of bail of the petitioner was rejected even by the High Court.

(3.) It was rightly contended on behalf of petitioner that the prayer of bail of this petitioner was rejected even up to the High Court and by that time no enquiry was made that the petitioner is a Juvenile and as such when the petitioner was declared as Juvenile then under Section 18 of the said Act the petitioner is definitely entitled for bail unless the Trial Court comes to a conclusion that there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. So there is mandatory provision that the petitioner should be released on bail subject to the aforesaid proviso as laid down under Section 18 of the said Act. It appears from the impugned order that the trial Court had not recorded any finding that release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice, and simply rejected the prayer of bail for the reason that earlier prayer of bail of the petitioner was rejected by the High Court. Meaning thereby the earlier rejection of the bail application was only an impediment in passing of the order.