IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1520 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 3rd October, 2011 Sanjay Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Gautam Diwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional AG Punjab for respondent No.1. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order (Annexure P-2) dated 1st February, 2010 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail was declined, and the order (Annexure P-1) dated 2nd May, 2011 passed by the appellate Court below, whereby the order declining bail to the petitioner has been affirmed on the ground that the offence committed by the petitioner-delinquent juvenile is grave in nature. Admittedly, the petitioner on the day of occurrence was aged about 17 years. There is an allegation of rape against him and he is stated to have kidnapped Pooja Rani, who was also about 13 years of Criminal Revision No.1520 of 2011 (O&M) age, from the lawful guardianship of her parents, i.e. Madan Rai. Counsel for the petitioner states that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the prosecutrix. This Court need not to determine the allegations and the plea raised in defence of the delinquent juvenile. Suffice it to say, it has been held in various judicial pronouncements that gravity of the offence is no consideration to decline bail to a delinquent juvenile. The only consideration which the Court has to take into consideration is that the delinquent juvenile, if released on bail, may not go astray beyond reformation. This Court, in ‘Ramesh alias Meshu v. State of Haryana’ 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 65 (P&H), where a juvenile had committed an offence of rape, trespass and caused grievous injuries, has observed as under: “I have heard the argument of the counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. In my opinion, rejection of bail application of the petitioner by the Courts below only on the ground that it will defeat the ends of justice, is wholly erroneous. The prosecution has not produced any material or evidence that release of the petitioner will defeat the ends of justice. The granting of bail to a juvenile is must notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other law for the time being in force. However, bail can only be declined in exceptional circumstances where it appears to the Court that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. In the instant case, there is no reasonable apprehension that the release of the petitioner will bring him into association with 2 Criminal Revision No.1520 of 2011 (O&M) any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. The only exceptional reason given by both the Courts below is that release of the petitioner will defeat the ends of justice. This conclusion also, in my opinion, is not based upon material or any reasonable grounds.” Furthermore, in ‘Atul Kumar v. State of Haryana’ 2003(4) RCR (Criminal) 404 (P&H), this Court has held as under: “I am further of the view that there has to be some evidence on record showing that after the release on bail, the petitioners are likely to come in association with any known criminal or their release on bail would expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or that their release would defeat the ends of justice. In a given case if the parents of the petitioners are also criminals either ex- convicts or members of a gang, it may be possible for the Court to refuse bail. Another example could be whether the petitioners have repeated the crime showing lapse on the part of the parents after their release while on bail, then the case may be covered by the exceptions carved out under Section 12 of the Act. However, in a case like the one in hand, where no material has been placed on record to show that the release of the `juvenile in conflict with law' would defeat the ends of justice or any other exception, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of bail merely on the basis of conjectures or opinion formed by the prosecution or the Court. Reliance in this regard could be placed on the judgments in the case of Sahabuddin @ Shabboo's case (supra) and Sanjeev Kumar's case (supra). ” This view has been further followed in ‘Vikas Yadav v. State of Haryana’ 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 440 (P&H). 3 Criminal Revision No.1520 of 2011 (O&M) Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, who is assisted by ASI Pawan Kumar, has failed to bring to the notice of this Court any material to show that in case the petitioner, who is a delinquent juvenile, is released on bail he will come in association with any known criminal or will expose himself to moral, physical or psychological danger and thereby the ends of justice would be defeated. The consideration for grant of bail to a delinquent juvenile and to an ordinary offender is entirely different. Hence, the present petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 3, 2011 rps 4