Narendra Kumar Jain -II, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner (a juvenile -through his brother Vikram) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent -State. This revision petition under Sec. 53 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000') has been filed against the order dt. 13.02.2013 passed by learned Session Judge, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 57/2013, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dt. 08.02.2013 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar in FIR No. 48/2013 registered at Police Station Laxmangarh for offence under Secs. 498A and 304B IPC, dismissing the bail application of the petitioner filed under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2000.
(2.) THE allegation of offence against the petitioner is under Secs. 498A and 304B IPC. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2000 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar was rejected vide order dt. 08.02.2013. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal under Sec. 52 of the Act of 2000 was filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Court and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dt. 13.02.2013. Dissatisfied by the orders dt. 13.02.2013 and 08.02.2013 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Sec. 53 of the Act of 2000 before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that impugned orders passed by the Courts below are illegal, unsustainable in the eyes of law and totally against the provisions of law. Learned Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the petitioner is a juvenile and entitled to get benefit of provisions of the Act of 2000. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 clearly provides that if the petitioner is juvenile, then he should be released on bail, but learned Courts below fully ignored the provisions of the Act of 2000. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since long time and no further detention of the petitioner is required for any purpose. There is no evidence to show that if the juvenile -petitioner is released on bail, then his 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 ends of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. Learned Courts below in quite cursory manner have declined bail to the applicant -petitioner. He further contended that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are not based upon definite facts and they are based on surmises and conjectures.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the petitioner as also the order passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. In compliance of order dt. 20.03.2013 passed by this Court, he has produced a report of Superintendent of Juvenile Justice Home, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Alwar in which the character and conduct of the petitioner has been found very good and as per the report, if the petitioner -juvenile is released on bail, then his release is not likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would not defeat ends of justice. Report No. 163 dt. 01.05.2013 produced by learned Public Prosecutor is taken on record. Relevant portion of the report reads as under: ;