Crl.Rev.No.1510 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.1510 of 2008 Date of Decision: 13.2.2009 Sonu and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Sanjiv Sheoran,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this revision is, for setting aside the orders dated 19.7.2008 and 1.8.2008, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind and the learned Addl.Sessions Judge-III, Jind, respectively, declining bail to the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners are juveniles and are facing trial before the Juvenile Justice Board, Jind, for commission of offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No.289 dated 29.5.2007, registered at Police Station City Jind. Counsel for the petitioners submits that apart from the fact that the petitioners are juvenile and their prayer for bail has to be considered and decided in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to Crl.Rev.No.1510 of 2008 2 as `the Act'), the petitioners are not named in the FIR. They have been falsely implicated on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co- accused, while in custody, in another case, eight months after the registration of the FIR. It is further submitted that the co-accused, who made the disclosure statement has been acquitted in the said case titled as Sessions Case No.36 of 2008, State V. Balkar @ Petha and others, vide judgement dated 23.10.2008. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioners be released on bail. Counsel for the State of Haryana, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners are criminals and are involved in a large number of cases. They should, therefore, not be released on bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders, as also considered the facts urged by counsel for the petitioners. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 reads as follows :- “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 Crl.Rev.No.1510 of 2008 3 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 be 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 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 Section 12 of the Act, discloses that a juvenile, who is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety except where it appears reasonable to believe that his 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. The petitioners are admittedly juveniles. In the other case arising from FIR No.62 dated 6.2.2008, Crl.Rev.No.1510 of 2008 4 registered under Sections 399,402 IPC and under Sections 25,54,59 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Jind, their co-accused have been acquitted. The State has not placed any material on record, that if released on bail, the petitioners would associate with any known criminals or would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or that their release would defeat the ends of justice. In the absence of any circumstance that would enable this Court to incarcerate the petitioners and in view of the binding mandate of Section 12 of the Act, the present revision is allowed and it is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail, to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Jind. Affidavit of Rohtash Singh, Inspector, Station House Officer, Police Station, City Jind, filed in Court today, is taken on record. The explanation for his absence is bonafide and is, therefore, accepted. 13.2.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE