- (1.) HAVING been denied the benefit of bail both by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar and by the District&Sessions Judge, Alwar, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) MR. Ravi Shankar Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('the Act', for short) is a mandatory provision, which requires that a juvenile delinquent shall be released on bail. Secondly, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had taken away the motorcycle which belonged to Lal Chand. Thirdly, this is his first offence and he does not have any adverse antecedent against him. Lastly, he is a handicapped person and his certificate of permanent disability has been issued by the Medical Board, which clearly shows that he suffers from 40% permanent disability. Therefore, the benefit of Section 12 of the Act should be given to him. On the other hand, Mr. Javed Chaudhary, the learned public prosecutor, has contended that according to the Statement of Lal Chand, the petitioner belongs to a gang of thieves, who not only abducted him, but also deprived him of his motorcycle. Furthermore, they demanded a ransom. Lal Chand further claims that he has come to know about the involvement of the petitioner because during his captivity the petitioner's name was repeatedly mentioned. Therefore, there is a strong possibility that in case, the petitioner were to be released on bail, he would go back to the known criminals. Moreover, the motorcycle was recovered from the petitioner. Hence, there is a linking evidence to connect the petitioner to the alleged crime. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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 incharge 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. A bare perusal of the said Section clearly reveals that it is not a mandatory provision, but is directory in nature. For, the Section clearly states that in case the release is likely to bring the juvenile delinquent 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, then on these three grounds the bail can be denied to him. According to the learned counsel for the State, one of the person involved in this gang is Leelaram who has many criminal cases pending against him. Therefore, clearly the petitioner belongs to a gang of criminals. Thus, there is a strong possibility that in case he were to be released on bail he would go back to the known criminals. Moreover, the release would defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the indulgence of bail under Section 12 of the Act to the petitioner.
(3.) IN this view of the matter, the petition is, hereby, dismissed.;