The High Court dismissed a revision petition against bail refusal for a juvenile in observation custody. The Court found no error in the lower courts' decision to press the proviso to section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, citing potential danger and existing case involvement of family members.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRLREV NO. 367 OF 2019
This revision has been directed against the judgment dated 04.05.2019 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Balasore in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2019.
By the said order, the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner (CICL) questioning the order dated 20.04.2019 passed by the learned P.M. JJB, Balasore in JGR Case No. 11 of 2019 in refusing to release the petitioner-CICL who is in the observation home in connection with Sahadevkhunta P.S. Case No. 356 of 2018 for alleged commission of offence under section 364/365/366-A/302/294/506 /34 of the IPC read with section 25/27 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner (CICL) submits that this petitioner along with his parents and brother have been arraigned in the case with the allegations as to commission of above noted offences. He further submits that in the meantime co-accused persons have been released on bail and this petitioner (CICL) has been staying in the observation home since 23.02.2018. According to him, further stay of the petitioner (CICL) in the observation home would not be in his best interest and welfare when elder family members having been released on bail are now ready to take all his care. In view of all the above, submitting that it is not a fit case press the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act into service in order to refuse bail to the petitioner
// 2 //
(CICL); he urges for release of the petitioner (CICL) on bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the move. According to him, this petitioner has been portrayed to have played the role as principal offender and here all the family members have been roped in the case in view of the death of the girl who is alleged to have been kidnapped by this petitioner (CICL) and brought home after some days on account of gunshot injury. He submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, not only lack of parental care (CICL) is apparent but also even at present, there arises a question mark that who would guard his guardians. He further submits that the surrounding circumstances being viewed, the possibility of the petitioner (CICL) facing physical danger on being released on bail very much stands and therefore his stay in the observation home would best serve his interest and welfare.
Keeping in view the submissions made, the impugned orders being perused, it is seen that the courts below being alive to the settled position of law governing the field of the release of the petitioner (CICL) on bail have rejected the prayer by pressing the provision of sub-section-1 of the section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act into service. It has been stated that in the facts and circumstances, there remains all the possibility that for
// 3 //
the petitioner (CICL) may be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger and his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice.
It may be stated here that the only place of stay of the petitioner (CICL) in the event of his release is his paternal home where other elder members stay and they have been arraigned as accused in the present case. The fact stands that the deceased had come with this petitioner (CICL) to their house wherefrom her dead body has been recovered and it is said that the death is because of firing from a gun at her when the gun is also an unlicensed one.
In view of all the aforesaid, this Court finds no justification to say that the courts below have committed error in pressing the proviso of sub-section1 of section 12 of the Act into service in refusing to release the petitioner on bail. Therefore, at this stage, finding no such illegality or impropriety with the orders, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present revision which is accordingly dismissed.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
…………………….. D. Dash, J.
Narayan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower courts erred in refusing to release the juvenile petitioner on bail by applying the proviso to subsection 1 of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act due to risks of moral and physic
3 provisions across 3 enactments
CICL
State
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
