SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For Petitioner, a juvenile in conflict with law, his father preferring this petition requests for allowing bail under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). Assailed is the order under Section 12 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board on 9.9.10 in FIR No. 676/09 P.S. Nimbahera registered for the offence of Section 8/18 NDPS Act and confirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Appeal No. 662/2010, rejecting Petitioner's appeal.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) For Petitioner argued is that undisputably, Petitioner is a juvenile, therefore, mandatory like are provisions for allowing him bail and unless very specific pertinent reasons exist he is to be enlarged on bail. Thrustly argued is that learned lower Courts without any cogent reasons and material concluded of possibility of delinquent entering into smuggling of opium and defeating ends of justice. Argues that only on the basis of this alleged recovery of narcotics substance, no adverse inference of nature mentioned in Section 12 of the Act are to be taken and irrespective of the nature of alleged act (for which chargesheet presented) is to be allowed bail particularly when presented through and by natural guardian father. Also submitted that necessary appropriate terms and conditions for eliminating any future untoward activity can be imposed. Arguing for bail, in support of arguments, learned Counsel relied on decision (a), 2008(2) C.L.R 1335 (b), 2007 (1) C.L.R. (Raj.) 254 (c), 2006(1) R. C.D. 323 (Raj.) (d), 2009 (1) R. C.D. 316 (Raj.).