K. N. Sinha, J. - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. Perused the impugned order passed by the appellate court and that of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.
(2.) ACCUSED Achal Singh alias Sheru was challanged for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. in Case Crime No. 770 of 2002. By the order dated 3.1.2003 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, the revisionist was held to be juvenile. The order was confirmed by appellate court vide its order dated 10.1.2003. However, the bail application of the applicant-revisionist was refused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the Board has not been constituted and the bail application has to be disposed of in view of Section 437, Cr. P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate further went on saying that the case is non-bailable and is triable by the Court of Sessions, hence there was no ground for granting bail to the revisionist. The appellate court also held that the revisionist committed heinous offence and if he is released, it may lead him to commit similar crime and society needs to be prevented from such hazardous adventurists who are capable of committing such barbaric act. So far as non-constitution of the Board is concerned, I called for a report from the Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, who reported that the matter regarding constitution of Juvenile Justice Board in each district is under process/ consideration but in view of Government Letter No. V.I.P.-4/60-1-2000-1/13(25)/2001, dated 10.4.2002, the Sessions Judges are empowered to see all such cases. Section 6 (2) of the Act also clear on this point which lays down that the powers conferred on the Board by or under this Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the Court of Sessions when proceedings come before them in appeal, revision or otherwise. An appeal was filed before the Sessions Judge, who rejected the bail though recorded the finding that the revisionist was a juvenile. While dealing with the cases of juvenile, the order has to be passed regarding the provisions of the Act. Section 12 of the Act is very clear on this point. The juvenile has to be released on bail notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the release can be refused only on three grounds. 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 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) .......................................... (3) ..........................................
(3.) ACCORDING to sub-section (1) of Section 12, any person, being juvenile, shall be released on bail with or without surety. However, for refusal of the bail, there are only three grounds-firstly if the release is likely to bring him into the association with any known criminal. Secondly, exposes him to moral, physical or psychological danger and thirdly, if his release would defeat the ends of justice. This Court has been repeatedly directing that if the release is refused on these grounds, the Court should record finding as to whether any such ground exists or not. It is not that the mere quoting of few lines from this Act, the bail should be refused. The overall purpose is to prevent youthful offenders from becoming hardened criminal and to convert them into useful citizens. The ground mentioned by the appellate court in para 7 of the judgment are extraneous to Section 12 of the Act. This cannot be a ground for refusing the bail of a juvenile.;