1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Ashok Chauhan & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1412/2009) Date of Order :- October 15th, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Sudarshan Laddha, for the petitioners. Mr.Javed Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor. Aggrieved by the denial of bail, both by the Juvenile Justice Board ('the Board', for short), vide order dated 07.08.2009 and by the Sessions Judge, vide order dated 12.08.2009, the petitioners have approached this Court. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 27.07.2009, on a Parcha Bayan of Fateh chand, a FIR, FIR No.292/2009 was registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 302 IPC against the petitioners. Since both the petitioners, who were minor, were named in the FIR and since overt acts were assigned to them in the FIR, they were arrested by the Police. Subsequently, they filed an application for being released on bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('the Act', for short) before the learned Chief Magistrate and Juvenile Justice Board. However, vide order dated 07.08.2009, the said application was dismissed by the learned Board. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. However, vide order dated 12.08.2009, the learned Judge dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court. 2 Mr. Sudarshan Laddha, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that Section 12 of the Act bestows an unqualified right on the juvenile to be released on bail. Therefore, the said bail could not be denied either by the learned Board, or the by learned Judge. In order to buttress this contention, he has relied upon the cases of Chitarlal S/o Radheylal Vs. The State of Rajasthan [2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 200], Inder Raj & Anr. Vs. State [2005 WLC (Raj.) UC 748], Mahesh Soni Vs. State [2007 (1) WLC (Raj.) 156], Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan [2007 (4) WLC (Raj.) 208], Kamlesh Vs. The State of Rajasthan [2004 WLC (Raj.) UC 256] and Satish & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan [2003 WLC (Raj.) UC 652]. On the other hand, Mr. Javed Chaudhary, the learned public prosecutor, has vehemently contended that Section 12 of the Act does not lay down a universal principle that the juvenile is entitled to a bail. According to Section 12 of the Act, in case the Juvenile is likely to come into association with any known criminal or is likely to be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or there is a likelihood that his release would defeat the ends of justice, then under these three circumstances, the juvenile can be denied the bail. Secondly, the alleged murder is committed within the family. In case the petitioners were released, they could be threatened and attacked by other family members who have lost the deceased. Thirdly, the words “the ends of justice” should be interpreted to include the sense of justice that exists within the society at large. A heinous crime like murder shocks the very conscience of the society. If the alleged culprits of murder are permitted to be free, the 3 conscience of the society is rattled. Therefore, the release of the petitioners on bail would defeat the ends of justice. Lastly, the law does not prescribe that a juvenile is entitled to bail by way of right. Therefore, he has supported the impugned orders. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the case law cited at the Bar, examined the challan papers submitted before this Court, and considered the impugned orders. Section 12 of the Act is as under :- 12. Bail of juvenile.- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non- bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release 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. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending 4 him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order. A bare perusal of the said provision clearly reveals that Section 12 of the Act does not lay down a universal principle that in every case the juvenile has a right to be released on bail. In fact, if reasonable ground exists for the Court to believe that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral or, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, under these three circumstances, the Court would be justified in denying the benefit of bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the contention raised by Mr. Laddha that the juvenile has to be released on bail as of right, is unacceptable. The cases relied by the learned counsel, mentioned above, do not lay down any universal principle that in every case a juvenile must be released on bail. In the case of Mahesh Soni (supra), the Court clearly observed that no material was made out for refusal of bail under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, this court was pleased to grant bail to the petitioner in that case. In the case of Inder Raj & Anr. (supra), the petitioner was allegedly involved in a case under Section 323, 379, 452 IPC. However, in the present case, the petitioners are involved in a case under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the case of Inder Raj & Anr. (supra) does not come to the rescue of the petitioners. Similarly, in the case of Chitarlal S/o Radheylal (supra), the facts are quite different. In the said case while the deceased has suffered a single injury, the said injury was 5 assigned to the juvenile delinquent and to other accused persons. Since a single injury cannot be assigned to more than one person, the juvenile delinquent was granted bail by this Court. However, the factual matrix of the present case are quite different from the facts of Chitarlal S/o Radheylal (supra). Thus, the said case does not help the petitioners. In the case of Tara Chand (supra), the question before this Court was whether a juvenile would be entitled to an anticipatory bail, in case he is accused of offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, or not ? In the said case, the petitioner was accused of offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act read with Section 341, 354 of the Penal Code. This Court held that Section 12 of the Act would have an overriding effect over the provisions of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. Therefore, an anticipatory bail can be entertained by the Board/Court. The case was remanded back to the Sessions Judge to determine whether the petitioner was a juvenile or not, and to consider anticipatory bail application in case he were discovered to be a juvenile. Since the said issue does not arise in the present case, clearly the said case is inapplicable to the present case. In the case of Kamlesh (supra), there was no material to suggest that there was any danger to physical, mental and psychological safety of the juvenile delinquent. Hence, this Court had ordered the grant of bail. In the case of Satish & Ors. (supra), the sub-ordinate court had failed to assign any reason for denying the benefit of bail. Therefore, the Court had granted the bail. 6 In the present case, the fight is within the family as the petitioners have allegedly killed their uncle. There is bound to be a feeling of vengeance in the minds of those who have survived the deceased. Thus, clearly if the present petitioners were released on bail, there is likelihood of physical danger to their lives. Moreover, since they are accused of a heinous crime like murder, they would be a source of curiosity and an object of social ridicule and comment. Therefore, their psychology is bound to be adversely affected. In these circumstances, it is better to keep the petitioners in the safe confine of a protection home. Most importantly, if those who allegedly commit a heinous crime like murder were granted bail, then conscience of the society would be shocked. A crime is an act against the society. Therefore, the conscience, the sensitivity of the society would have to be kept in mind. Thus, the release of the petitioners would defect the ends of justice. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. However, as both the petitioners are juvenile, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial as soon as possible so that the petitioners do not continue to languish in the protection home. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-