BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Tenth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13064 of 2011 KALIKKANI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUVADANAI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, CRIME NO.5/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.DEENADHAYALAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is the third accused in Crime NO.5 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offence under Section 376(F) and 506(ii) of IPC. The alleged occurrence was on 28.08.2011 onwards and he was in judicial custody from 05.09.2011. He has come forward with this petition seeking bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the Juvenile and in order to substantiate the said contention, he has produced the Transfer Certificate issued by the Department of School Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, showing that the date of birth is 10.12.1993. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the petitioner is entitled for bail. 3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) is not in a position to dispute the above fact. 4. I considered the above submissions. 5. In my considered opinion, as of now there is a prima facie material to show that the petitioner is only a juvenile in conflict with law, as defined in the juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The aim of the act is to reform not to punish a juvenile in conflict with law. Under Section 12 of the said Act, unless it is shown that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the released is likely to bring him to association with any known criminal or expose him to moral physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice, he would be entitled for bail. 6. In this case, the respondent does not make, any such objections, except saying that the petitioner is involved in a rape of a girl aged about 16 years, he has not made any other objections. 7. As provided under Section 12 of the Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the other accused involved in this case, were already granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board. The learned counsel would bring to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not been dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board, because his age has been shown as more than 18 years in the police records. 8. In my considered opinion, Prima facie since the petitioner is a Juvenile in conflict with law, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 9. In the result this petition is ordered and bail is granted to the petitioner on the following conditions:- The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his parents (mother and father) executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai sd/- 10/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVADANAI 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM 3. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, SUB JAIL, MELUR 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUVADANAI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, 5. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. S.DEENADHAYALAN Advocate SR.No.13064 GH : 11.10.2011 : 2p/7c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13064 of 2011 Date :10/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/