- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 28.02.2011, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar ('the Board', for short), whereby the learned Magistrate had denied the benefit of bail to the petitioner, and also aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2011, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Alwar, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 28.02.2011, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that one Smt. Batuli had lodged a report at Police Station Ramgarh, District Alwar wherein she alleged that the petitioner had ravished her fourteen years old daughter. On the basis of the said report, the police chalked out a formal FIR, FIR No.174/2010 for offences under 363, 366 and 376/511 IPC. However, as the petitioner was a juvenile, his case was placed before the learned Board. Vide order dated 28.02.2011, the learned Board dismissed his bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act, 2000 ('the Act', for short). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the learned Judge. However, vide order dated 11.03.2011, the learned Judge while upholding the order dated 28.02.2011, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Azad Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that under Section 12 of the Act, ordinarily a bail should be granted to a person without considering the nature of the offence. Moreover, the allegation is not so much of rape as it is of an attempt to rape. Therefore, the petitioner should be tried for offence under Section 376/511 IPC. According to him, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner is associated with any known criminal person or criminal gang. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that in case the petitioner were to be released, there would be any physical or psychological danger to him, or that this release would defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, the bail should be granted to the petitioner. On the other hand, Mr. Paresh Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that the allegation against the accused-petitioner is that he had committed rape on a fourteen years old child. Therefore, to release them on bail would defeat the ends of justice. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. It is, indeed, a misnomer that Section 12 of the Act is a mandatory provision. Section 12 of the Act is 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 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. Thus, although the bail may be the rule, but under three circumstances, the benefit of bail can be denied to the juvenile delinquent : if it is shown that he keeps company with known or unknown criminals, if his release would expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger, or in case it would defeat the ends of justice.
(3.) JUSTICE is neither a one way street, nor is it limited only to the accused. While rule of law demands that the accused be provided a fair trial, rule of law also dictates that the victim should have the feelings that justice has not only been done, but also appears to be done to him / her. If justice were not done to the victim, the victim would lose faith in the rule of law. Similarly, since crime is an act against the society, if justice were not done with the society, the faith of the society in the judicial process would be shattered. Therefore, the judiciary must balance the interest of the individual of the accused, on the one hand, with the interest of the victim and the society, on the other hand. Although it is true that the gravity of an offence cannot be the deciding factor, but while trying to administer justice, the Court must be conscious of the nature of the offence. It would be one of the factors to be kept in mind while trying to impart justice to the accused and to the victim, in particular, and to the society in general. In a case of rape to release the accused on bail would certainly defeat the ends of justice. This view has been held by this Court in the case of Om Singh @ Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1277/2010 decided on 28.03.2011). The Juvenile Justice Act is not meant to be used as a revolving door by the juvenile delinquent. Juvenile delinquent cannot argue that once he has committed a grave offence, he must be permitted to be released on bail so as to permit him to commit further crime. One of the aims of the Juvenile Justice Act is to reform the juvenile delinquent so that he is prevented from graduating to being a hardened criminal. This process of reform cannot be done by releasing the juvenile delinquent. He/she can be reformed only in an institutional setting. Therefore, the denial of a bail to the juvenile delinquent and keeping him within judicial custody is not a denial of his personal liberty or life. In fact, if he can be reformed, if he can be taught techniques and trade to earn a living, if he can be treated psychologically, if he can be reformed to the point that upon his release he will become a contributory member of the society, such a detention would be both in his interest and in the interest of the society. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. This petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. ;