The opening words are that such " person shall not be released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing.................... ". The question which arises is what shall be the reasonable grounds. In my view the mere probabilities, conjectures or surmises cannot take place of "reasonable grounds". The Court should have some good material to arrive at a conclusion bringing the case within three exceptions, as aforesaid, which was not there. It appears that the appellate Court got swayed by the nature of allegations or offence in which he, as per opinion of the appellate Court, appeared to have been involved. This fact impelled the appellate Court to draw conclusion that his release shall defeat the ends of justice. The appellate Court, in my opinion, took a very narrow view of the ends of justice. The ends of justice brings within its scope three broad facets. Firstly , the welfare of the child himself. Secondly , the demands of justice of the victim or the victim's family. Thirdly , the larger concerns of the society. When the second aspect i.e., the demands of justice to the victim/his family is considered, the factors like nature of the offence, the evidence collected, the extent of involvement, the methodology adopted, the background or cause or the motive and such other facts of the kind or merits of the case are the factors which may be of great significance.
