I need authority in Sec.12 of Juvenile and with bail for 376 under IPC
Rekha.....
(Querist) 28 September 2008
This query is : Resolved
Hello! My Gud friends
Hope u all r in a best of health n sprit
Again I need Help from U.
I need Authorities based on sec.12 of Juvenile Justice Act arrested under the charge of sec. 376 of IPC and applied for Bail. I am in the side of accused. Plz supply me soft copy of it. If it is possible send me immediately.
Thax
ARVIND JAIN
(Expert) 29 September 2008
law is clear. no authority as the same is recently amended in aug 2006 only.
K.C.Suresh
(Expert) 30 September 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT: JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT
CRL.REV.P 570/2006
Judgment delivered on: 06.09.2006
MANOJ KUMAR .... Petitioner
Through: Mr Vijender Sharma.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI). .... Respondent
Through: Mr V.K. Malik.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.2006 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner
against the order dated 6.6.2006 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board rejecting the
petitioner's bail application, was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner, being a juvenile,
the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000, (hereinafter referred to as `the said Act'), would apply insofar as the question of
consideration of grant of bail to the juvenile is concerned. He submits that as a rule, a
juvenile has to be granted bail unless his case falls under one of the exceptions carved out
in Section 12 itself. Referring to a decision of this Court in Manoj @ Kali v. The State
(NCT of Delhi) delivered on 2.6.2006 in Criminal Rev. (P) 178/2006, the learned counsel
for the petitioner pointed out that the juvenile has to be released on bail mandatorily
unless and until the exceptions carved out in the Section itself are made out. The
exceptions being:-
a) a reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into
association with any known criminal;
b) his release is likely to expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger; and
c) his release would defeat the ends of justice.
He submits that there is nothing to indicate that if the juvenile is released, he would be
brought in association with any known criminal. He further submits that there is nothing
in the Social Investigation Report which would indicate that his release was likely to
expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger and, of course, there is
nothing to suggest that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the impugned order passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, and in particular, to the contents of paragraph 5
thereof, wherein it is recorded that a perusal of the Social Investigation Report reveals
that the juvenile had admitted his charges. He then referred to the copy of the Social
Investigation Report, where there is no such admission. On the other hand, it is clearly
stated in the Social Investigation Report that the juvenile had denied his offence and that
the juvenile had told the Social Investigation Officer that he has not done any wrong act
with the victim. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the finding
which found favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge is contrary to the record.
As regards the question of the prosecutrix living in proximity to the petitioner and,
therefore, there being likelihood of the situation being aggravated, the learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father has already given an affidavit
indicating that the petitioner would be kept at a different place where the petitioner's
maternal uncle resides, i.e. at Greater Kailash, New Delhi, which is at a great distance
from the place where the prosecutrix resides.
3. The learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order. However, he could
not point out as to how the present case would fall under any of the three exceptions
mentioned in Section 12 of the said Act. The finding with regard to the admission of the
charges by the petitioner recorded in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is
also contrary to the record.
4. In keeping with the various decisions of this Court mentioned in Manoj @ Kali
(supra), the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on
bail o
