@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Mr. Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this revision petition, the petitioner, who is a ""juvenile in conflict with law"" has challenged the order dated 04.05.2016 passed by the District
& Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No.93/2016 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.03.2016
passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur in FIR No.107/2015 registered at Police Station Kaman (District Bharatpur) for the offence
under Section 376 and for the offence under Section 3 (2) (V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter to
be referred as ''the Act'') before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur was dismissed vide order dated 30.03.2016 mainly on the ground that the
offence for which the allegation has been made against the petitioner is serious, although, at the same time it was observed by the learned Board
that the seriousness of the offence is not a ground to decline bail to a juvenile.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.03.2016, an appeal under Section 52 of the Act was filed by the petitioner before the Appellate
Authority and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 04.05.2016 on the ground that it would not be in the interest of justice to grant benefit
of bail to the petitioner and also on the ground that there is every possibility of petitioner coming in contact with known and unknown persons of
criminal nature. It was also observed by the learned Appellate Authority that in the facts and circumstances of the petitioner and also looking to the
gravity of the offence it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the appeal of the petitioner.
5. Dissatisfied by the impugned orders, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the gravity and seriousness of the offence committed by a juvenile cannot be a ground to
decline bail to him. He also contended that the Courts below without taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of the Act, in a cursory
manner declined bail to the petitioner. It was submitted that there is no material on record to reach to a conclusion that if benefit of bail is granted
to the petitioner it would not be in the interest of justice and there is every possibility of petitioner coming in contact with known or unknown
persons of criminal nature. Attention was also invited of the Court towards report of Probation Officer dated 28.3.2016 which is favourable to the
petitioner.
7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the orders of the Courts below.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me, perused the provisions of the Act and the case law cited before me.
9. It is well settled that ordinarily a ""juvenile in conflict with law"" must be released on bail unless the exceptional circumstances mentioned in Section
12 of the Act are clearly made out by evidence and the Juvenile Justice Board on perusing the material available on the record comes to a definite
conclusion that in the circumstance of the case, it would not be in the interest of the juvenile to release him on bail. It is also well settled that at the
time of consideration of bail gravity and nature of the offence cannot be looked into.
10. After carefully examining the provisions of the Act, I find that in both the impugned orders no exceptional circumstances as indicated in Section
12 of the Act to decline bail to the juvenile, are made out. Learned Board as well as the learned Appellate Court have not properly appreciated
the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the Act and other provisions in relation to the juvenile and merely on the basis of unfounded
apprehension, the bail has been declined. In my opinion, the Act being a beneficial and social oriented legislation needs to be given full effect by all
concerned, whenever the matter relating to juvenile comes for consideration before them. In the absence of any material or evidence of reasonable
grounds, it can not be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
11. The net result of the above discussion is that the revision petition is allowed, order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice
Board, Bharatpur as well as the order dated 04.05.2016 passed by the learned Appellate Court i.e. Sessions Judge, Bharatpur declining bail to
the petitioner are, hereby, set aside and it is directed that the petitioner-Jahid Husain @ Jahid son of Shri Akhtar Husain shall be released on bail
on furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian Akhtar Husain (father) in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing he shall produce the petitioner
before the said Board or any other Court during pendency of the inquiry in the case and that his guardian shall keep proper look after of the
petitioner and keep him away from the company of known criminals.