- (1.) THE instant revision application has been filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 with a prayer for quashing the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, XX, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 2007 whereby the petitioner's appeal filed under Section 52 of the Act against the order dated 21.9.2007 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi rejecting the petitioner's prayer for bail was dismissed.
(2.) FACTS of the case in brief is that the petitioner was made an accused in a case registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides the petitioner, the co -accused in the case are his father and other members of his family. Since the petitioner was found to be a juvenile on the date of occurrence, his case was forwarded for inquiry and disposal to the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner filed his prayer for bail under Section 12 of the Act but the Juvenile Justice Board vide its impugned order dated 21.9.2007 rejected his prayer. Against the order of rejection, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi reiterating his prayer for bail but the same was rejected by the impugned order of the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. Assailing the impugned order, counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Additional Judicial Commissioner have erred, both on points of law as well as on facts in failing to consider that the petitioner deserves the privilege of bail. Shri SK Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the petitioner's prayer for bail was against the provisions of law since the rejection was made only on the ground that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious. Learned counsel argues further that the observation made in the impugned orders that the release of the petitioner would invariably bring him in association of his father who is already an accused in the same case and therefore, it would not be conducive in the interest of justice to release the petitioner on bail, is also misconceived. Referring to the report of the probation officer, learned counsel explains that the probation officer has categorically stated that though, the petitioner's father being also an accused in the same case, is presently lodged in jail but the petitioner's mother and his maternal uncle are capable of taking the petitioner in their custody and to give him proper care and protection under their control. Learned counsel adds that the report of the probation officer also indicates that the incident had occurred between the members of the same family on account of partition of landed properties and that the petitioner is a student of Intermediate living under the care and custody of his guardians at village Patamda.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, while objecting to the prayer of the petitioner and controverting the grounds raised by the petitioner, offers support to the impugned orders as passed both by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional Judicial Commissioner. Learned counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioner is serious and his involvement in the crime alongwith his father and other accused persons has been categorically stated in the FIR.;