Citation : 2007 Local Law (CG) 16
The Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed a criminal revision and ordered the release on bail of a juvenile who had been denied bail by the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur. The case arose from Crime No. 78/2005 at Ramkola police station, involving serious offences under Sections 399 and 402 read with 34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The juvenile had absconded from Samprekshan on January 27, 2006, surrendered on November 2, 2006, and applied for bail. The Juvenile Justice Board denied bail and the Sessions Judge later rejected an appeal against that order; the High Court has now set both aside.
Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha’s order emphasises two central points. First, while Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 permits refusal of bail where there are “reasonable grounds for believing” that release would expose the juvenile to prescribed risks, that belief must rest on evidence not mere conjecture. The court cited precedents (including decisions from the Allahabad and Rajasthan High Courts) holding that refusal must be supported by material such as police reports, probation officer assessments, or other substantive evidence showing the likelihood of the juvenile coming into harmful association or that release would defeat the ends of justice.
Second, the High Court stressed the importance of reasoned orders. Judicial conclusions require live, intelligible reasons linking facts to the decision; an order that refuses liberty without explaining the factual basis for the statutory concerns is legally unsustainable. Because the Sessions Judge’s decision lacked such reasons and did not point to supporting material, the High Court found no lawful basis to deny bail.
Accordingly, the revision petition was allowed. The juvenile’s earlier bail application before the Board is granted: release is ordered on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Board, and the bail bond is to be furnished by the father or guardian. The revision stands finally disposed of.
This ruling underlines a practical principle for juvenile jurisprudence: statutory exceptions to bail must be proven, and courts must record the factual basis for depriving a juvenile of conditional liberty. The judgment reinforces procedural safeguards built into the Juvenile Justice Act and serves as a reminder to trial courts and Boards to state reasons and rely on concrete material when opposing bail for children and adolescents.
Case Title : Sandeep vs. State of Chhattisgarh (21.02.2007)
Relevant Section:
JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2000 [REPEALED] – Section 12(1)
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Arms Act 1959 – Section 25, Arms Act 1959 – Section 27; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 34; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 399; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 402; Juvenile Justice (care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000 [repealed] – Section 12, Juvenile Justice (care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000 [repealed] – Section 12(1), Juvenile Justice (care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000 [repealed] – Section 53
Cases Referred:
Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah and Ors. vs. Hoti Lal and Anr. AIR 2003 SC 1462 : ( 2003 ) 3 SCC 605 : ( 2003 ) SCC(LS) 363 : [ 2003 ] 1 SCR 1019
======
जमानत का अनुदान – आवेदक द्वारा जमानत के लिए आवेदन प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसे न्यायालय द्वारा अस्वीकार कर दिया गया। इसके विरुद्ध पुनरीक्षण याचिका दायर की गई।
निर्णय में यह कहा गया कि जब सेशन न्यायाधीश ने किशोर को जमानत पर रिहा न करने के अपने निर्णय के लिए कोई ठोस कारण दर्ज नहीं किया, तो ऐसा कोई युक्तिसंगत आधार नहीं था जिस पर न्यायालय या बोर्ड द्वारा उसकी रिहाई से इनकार किया जा सके। केवल यह कह देना कि उसकी रिहाई से वह किसी अपराधी के संपर्क में आ सकता है या न्याय के उद्देश्यों को ठेस पहुँच सकती है, पर्याप्त नहीं है।
अतः, पुनरीक्षण स्वीकार किया गया और किशोर को जमानत पर रिहा करने का आदेश दिया गया।
