- (1.) THIS revision application under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) 2000, Act (Hereinafter referred to as 'Act') read with Section 397 and 411 Cr. P.C. has been filed for setting aside the judgment dated 19.4.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2002 and enlarge the petitioner on bail.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to the case are as follows : Informant Samir Kumar Mukherjee gave a written report before Officer -incharge. Deoghar P.S. to the effect that he lives near Kaster Town Satnali Bhavan where he has constructed his own house and has been residing since July and prior to that, he had lived for ten years in the house of one Madan Mohan Prasad on rental basis in the same locality. Yesterday i.e. on 8.10.2001 at about 6.00 P.M. in the evening, his wife Sujata Mukherjee disclosed to him that a letter was found at the gate of the house which was enclosed in white envelope. On opening of the envelope, when he read out the letter, from which it appeared that he has been asked to place Rupees two lakhs on 10.10.2001 at 8.00 P.M. near electric pole in front of the house of Madan Mohan Prasad with threatening not to disclose the matter to the police. His wife discloses to him that their son Arpan Mukherjee (Jay) aged 11 years returned from school at 4.00 P.M. and after taking lunch and changing his clothes, went to the house of Sunil Das informing her that he is going to the house of Sunil Das and will come back after ten minutes. Sunil Kumar Das (Petitioner) resides in that very house of Madan Mohan Prasad. The informant thereafter went to the house of the friend of his son and searched his son till 8.30 P.M. At about 5.30 P.M., Sunil Das came to his house searching for his son (Jay), then his wife told Sunil Das that Arpan has gone to his house. On this piece of written report, a case was registered and police after investigation made arrest of several persons including this petitioner and in course of investigation, it transpired that this petitioner who is aged about 15 years is having love affairs with the daughter of one Deo Krishan Prasad alias Lalu who is aged about 20 years. He played the pivotal role in calling Arpan to his house, handed over him to other persons who were involved in the commission of murder and brought a letter containing the demand of Rupees Two Lakhs and went to the house of the deceased and while coming back from the house dropped the letter and dropping of the letter was witnessed by several ladies and other witnesses that this petitioner had dropped letter at the gate of the house of the informant. His prayer for bail under Section 12 of the Act was rejected by the learned A.C.J.M. and subsequently appeal under Section 38 of the Act was also rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter this revision has been filed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the case of this petitioner is on better footing than that of Amit Kumar Gupta who as it appears from the confessional statement, committed murder of Arpan (Jay) and he being a Juvenile was enlarged on bail and this petitioner is only said to have called Arpan to his house and dropped the letter at the gate of the house of the deceased but did not participate in commission of the murder of Arpan. Therefore, case of this petitioner is on better footing than that of Amit Kumar Das. The learned counsel further pointed out that aim and spirit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is not to detain juveniles in remand homes or to punish him and this will , be evident from the fact that previously a child below the age of 16 years was declared to be a juvenile. In the new Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the age limit of 16 years has been enhanced to 18 years and the child below the age of 18 years is declared to be a juvenile. The learned counsel further pointed out that there is mandatory provision of law that juveniles shall be released on bail and this being a mandatory provision, the petitioner has to be enlarged on bail. But there are certain conditions under which a juvenile will not be so released on bail and provision is quoted hereinbelow. "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." 2000 (3) PLJR 802 and submitted that this is a special bench decision in the matter. Learned counsel further submitted that according to the full bench decision, gravity of the offence is not to be taken into consideration and finding of the special bench is quoted hereinbelow : "It clearly transpires from a combined reading of the sections hereinbefore extracted that where a juvenile delinquent is arrested, he/she has to be produced before a juvenile court and if no juvenile court is established for the area, amongst others, the Court of Sessions will have powers of Juvenile Court such a juvenile delinquent ordinarily has to be released on bail irrespective of the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed unless it is shown that there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him under the influence of any criminal or expose him to moral danger or defeat the ends of justice. Section 25 forbids any trial of a juvenile delinquent and only an inquiry can be held in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the trial of a summons case and the bar of Section 24 which has been given an overriding effect as it opens with the non -obstante clause takes away the power of the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment unless the case falls under the proviso.";