IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-13106 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 25.5.2010 Varinder Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl.A.G.Punjab. **** ORDER The present petition has been filed on behalf of Varinder Singh for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.49 dated 4.4.2010 under Section 377 IPC registered at Police Station Chheharta, Amritsar. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 10.5.2010 and at the time of issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed: “ Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a juvenile and is a student of 10th class and name of accused has been given as Gora son of Sadhu Singh, whereas, the petitioner is Varinder Singh son of Resham Singh. Learned counsel further submits that even in the supplementary statement, name of the accused has been given as Varinder Singh son of Sadhu Singh. Notice of motion to A.G., Punjab for 18.5.2010. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. He shall join the investigation as and Crl.Misc. No.M-13106 of 2010 [2] when required by the Investigating Officer. He shall also comply with the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., which are as under:- i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii)that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; iii)that the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation and he is no more required for further investigation. Learned counsel also submits that the present petitioner is juvenile and studying in Xth Class and being a juvenile, it is mandatory to release on bail. Learned counsel further submits that his bail was wrongly declined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on the ground that serious allegations are there and he had committed sodomy with minor child of 7 years. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgments of this Court in Ramesh alias Meshu v. State of Haryana 2005(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 65, Baljinder alias Bantu v. U.T. Chandigarh 2005(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 733 and Manmohan Singh v. State of Punjab 2004(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 89 to Crl.Misc. No.M-13106 of 2010 [3] support his arguments. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner has committed a serious offence and serious allegations are there against him and he does not deserve the concession of bail. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Admittedly, the petitioner was juvenile and at the time of alleged occurrence, he was only 16 years. Now the question for consideration by this Court is whether petitioner being juvenile is entitled to the concession of bail in view of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 12 of the Act is reproduced 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 Crl.Misc. No.M-13106 of 2010 [4] 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 in-charge 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.” It is clear from the provisions of the aforesaid section that it is mandatory for juvenile Court to release a juvenile on bail with or without surety if such a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Juvenile Board in a bailable or non-bailable offence, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The only exception is that if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring 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, then he shall not be released on bail. The Crl.Misc. No.M-13106 of 2010 [5] reasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to bring 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, should be based upon some material/evidence available on the record. It is not a matter of subjective satisfaction but while declining bail to the juvenile on the said ground, there must be objective assessment of the reasonable grounds that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him in 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 my considered opinion and in view of provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the benefit of bail cannot be denied to the juvenile on the ground that he had committed henious crime. There is only one exception as indicated above but under the said exception also, the release of the juvenile on bail can be denied if there is sufficient material on record which clearly indicates that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with bad company or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Keeping in view the positon as mentioned above and the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation, the interim directions dated 10.5.2010 are made absolute. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE May 25, 2010. raghav Crl.Misc. No.M-13106 of 2010 [6]