Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. (Oral)—The petitioner, a juvenile in conflict with law, aged about sixteen year ten month and twenty-one days on
the date of occurrence, is in observation home at Muzaffarpur since 16th March, 2015 in connection with Sitamarhi P. S. Case No. 324 of 2015
registered under Sections 385 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor he was put on T.I. Parade during
investigation. He was apprehended by the police in connection with the aforesaid case on the basis of disclosure made by one Chandan Kumar, a
co-accused. His application for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi (For short ''J.J. Board'') on 29th September, 2015 on
the ground of seriousness of the offence and involvement of the petitioner in some other cases.
3. It has been further submitted that the appellate court has also rejected his application on the ground of gravity of the allegation and complicity of
the petitioner in some other cases apart from the present one. It is submitted that the J.J. Board and the appellate court have not appreciated the
provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (For short ''the Act of 2000'') in correct perspective and they have
dealt with the case of the petitioner as an adult offender.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application for grant of bail to the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual
offender and, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Be it noted that the position with regard to bail is very different under juvenile jurisprudence. In this regard, it is relevant to take note of Section
12 of the Act of 2000, which reads as under:-
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 or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or
under the care of any fit institution or fit person 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.
(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer
shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order
sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the
order"".
7. From a perusal of Section 12 of the Act of 2000, it would be evident that the prayer for bail of a juvenile in conflict with law can be refused on
three prescribed grounds and not on the grounds of seriousness or gravity of the offence. A juvenile in conflict with law may not be released if there
appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.
8. In the present case, it does not appear that the J.J. Board or the appellate court had called for any social investigation report from the Probation
Officer or any other authority in respect of the petitioner. The bail has been rejected only on the ground of the seriousness of offence and his
implication in more than one case. In case of a juvenile in conflict with law bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. If the rejection of the bail is
not based on any grounds mentioned under Section 12 of the Act of 2000, it would be bad in the eye of law.
9. Here, in the present case, the rejection of the bail of the petitioner is on a ground different from what has been prescribed under Section 12 of
the Act of 2000.
10. Furthermore, the petitioner is in observation home for about eighteen months and the inquiry proceeding is still pending. The proviso to Section
14 of the Act of 2000 contemplates that an inquiry regarding juvenile shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of its
commencement, unless the period is extended by the Board, having regard to the circumstances of the case and in special cases after recording the
reasons in writing for such extension.
11. In the present case, there is nothing on record to justify the prolonged inquiry spread over a period of eighteen months in respect of the
petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order 15th December, 2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No.108
of 2015/35 of 2015 and the order dated 29th September, 2015 passed by the J.J. Board, Sitamarhi, in G.R. No. 1409 of 2015, arising out of
Sitamarhi P.S. Case No.324 of 2015, are set aside. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the J.J. Board, Sitamarhi in connection with
Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 324 of 2015.
13. The revision application stands allowed.