Citation : 2006 Lcoal Law (CG) 295 : 2006(42)AIC573 : 2006(1)CGLJ305
The Chhattisgarh High Court on Friday ordered the release on bail of two juveniles who had been held in connection with a motorcycle theft case dating back to 2004–2005, finding that earlier denials of bail lacked the necessary reasoning.
Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha heard the petitions and noted that the accused were arrested after a Hero Honda motorcycle (registration BR-IR-7828) was reportedly stolen on November 18, 2004, and recovered on December 5, 2005. The prosecution says the theft was carried out by a co-accused, who later told investigators he had handed the motorcycle first to Akhilesh Kumar and then to Satyendra Kumar. Both Akhilesh and Satyendra the applicants before the court were taken into custody in December 2005.
Earlier, the Juvenile Board refused their bail applications, and the Sessions Court dismissed an appeal under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. When fresh bail applications were later moved under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sessions Court again refused bail, observing that the earlier appeal had been rejected and noting only that a charge sheet had been filed since then.
The High Court rejected that approach. Pointing to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, Justice Sinha emphasized that the Board is ordinarily obliged to release juveniles on bail unless specific, mandatory conditions apply for example, where release would expose the juvenile to known criminals, create moral or psychological danger, or otherwise defeat the ends of justice. The judge found that neither the Board nor the Sessions Court had explained how releasing these juveniles would defeat the ends of justice.
The court also recorded mitigating facts: the applicants are reported to be Class XII students whose practical examinations were scheduled for January 2006, and both had been in custody since December 5, 2005. Balancing those factors with the statutory presumption in favor of bail for juveniles, the court held that the present case merited release.
Accordingly, the High Court directed that both applicants be released on bail on furnishing a bond of ₹5,000 with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Board. The surety and bond are to be furnished by the father or guardian, and the applicants must appear before the Juvenile Board on every date of hearing until the trial concludes. The court further ordered that the certified copy of the Sessions Court order of December 7, 2005 be placed on record with the criminal revision file.
The judgment underscores the statutory protection afforded to juvenile offenders and the requirement that courts give concrete reasons when departing from the presumption of bail for children. In this case, the High Court found the prior negative orders short on such reasoning and remedied that by permitting conditional release while the criminal proceedings continue.
Case Details : M.Cr.C. No. 3395 of 2005, Akhilesh Kumar vs. State of C.G. (06.01.2006)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Ashok Patil, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Sudhir Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 41(1)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 439; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 34; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 379; Juvenile Justice (care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000 [repealed] – Section 12, Juvenile Justice (care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000 [repealed] – Section 52
======
न्यायालय ने यह माना कि वर्तमान मामले में, विशेष रूप से इस तथ्य को ध्यान में रखते हुए कि अभियुक्त अल्पवयस्क (juvenile) हैं, और वे जेल में निरुद्ध हैं तथा यह भी बताया गया कि वे कक्षा बारहवीं के छात्र हैं जिनकी प्रायोगिक परीक्षा (practical examination) निकट थी, ऐसे में यह उचित होगा कि उन्हें जमानत पर रिहा किया जाए।
अदालत ने यह भी कहा कि किशोर न्याय (बालकों की देखभाल एवं संरक्षण) अधिनियम, 2000 की धारा 12 के अनुसार, किसी किशोर को सामान्यतः जमानत पर रिहा किया जाना चाहिए, जब तक कि यह न लगे कि उसकी रिहाई न्याय के उद्देश्य को विफल कर देगी या उसे किसी अपराधी की संगति में ले आएगी।
इस आधार पर न्यायालय ने दोनों अभियुक्तों को ₹5,000 के निजी मुचलके और समान राशि के एक जमानतदार पर रिहा करने का आदेश दिया।
