Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
VIKKI SINGH V/S STATE OF CHATTISGARH, decided on Monday, February 13, 2006.
[ In the High Court of Chattisgarh, Cri. Revn 67 Of 2006. ] 13/02/2006
Judge(s) : DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH
Advocate(s) : Manoj Paranjape, Ashish Shukla.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page


Judgments that may be related:-


  Randhir versus State of M.P.,   18/01/2006.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2006 CrLJ 1892 "  ==   "2006 CgLJ 447"  ==   "2006 (45) ALLINDCAS 804"  







    Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 ? Section 12 -     (1.) This criminal revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against an order dated 16-1-2006 passed by Sessions Judge Surguja Ambikapur in criminal case No. 5/2006 whereby the appeal preferred by the applicants herein against the order dated 4-1-2006 refusing to grant bail to the applicants-Vikki Singh and Kamarul by the Juvenile Justice Board Ambikapur was dismissed.(2.) Brief facts are that on 11-11-2005 at about 11.00 p.m. upon receiving information that certain persons were making preparations to commit dacoity Sub-Inspector K. K. Bhagat along with police force reached near the canal near village Bhidia. Upon seeing the police force arrive the persons assembled there attempted to flee away. Kamarul Hasan Vikki Singh and Pradeep Yadav were apprehended on the spot. The remaining persons fled away. Crime No. 78/2005 under Sections 399 402 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. was registered in Police Station Ramkola District Surguja. One wooden club in which a pointed rod was inserted along with a motor cycle was seized from applicant Vikki Singh. One iron knife with a plastic handle was seized from applicant Kamarul. Both Vikki Singh and Kamarul being juveniles were sent to the observation home Ambikapur. On 30-12-2005 an application for bail was moved on behalf of the applicants. Vide order dated 4-1-2006 the Juvenile Justice Board dismissed the application on the ground that considering the facts of the case the release of the applicants-juveniles Vikki and Kamarul would defeat the ends of justice and bring them into association with known criminals. Aggrieving with the opinion expressed by the Juvenile Justice Board appeal preferred against the said order dated 4-1-2006 was dismissed by the Sessions Judge Surguja. Hence this revision.(3.) Shri Manoj Paranjape learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on Chhotu Babu v. State of Chhatisgarh passed in M.Cr. C. No. 2708/2005 Order dated 24-1-2006 and argued that reasonable grounds must exist for believing that the release of the juvenile 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. In the absence of any such reasonable apprehension or ground the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board Ambikapur as well as the Sessions Judge Ambikapur could not be sustained in the eye of law. On the other hand Shri Ashish Shukla learned G. A. supported the impugned order and argued that considering the nature of offence the existence of reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the applicants was likely to bring them into association with any known criminal or to expose them to moral physical or psychological danger or to defeat the ends of justice could safely be presumed.(4.) The mandate of Section 12 of the Act to release any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence and apparently a juvenile when arrested or detained or having appeared or is brought before a Board is subject to only three exceptions. A reasonable ground must exist for believing that the release is :i) likely to bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal; or ii) expose him to moral physical or psychological danger; or iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Unless there appear reasonable grounds to justify the existence of one or more of the three conditions mentioned above the mandate of Section 12 to release the juvenile on bail would be attracted. 4A. In the present case the F.I.R. dated 12-7-2005 clearly shows that both the applicants/juveniles were in association with some unknown criminals. One of them i.e. Pradeep Yadav was found in possession of a country made pistol in running condition with a live cartridges. The other companions fled away on seeing the police arrive. One knife was seized from the possession of applicant-Kamarul the blade of which was about 8 long. One wooden club was seized from applicant Vikki Singh which had a pointed rod inserted inside. The time and place of occurrence is also veiy important. The applicants were found to be in association with some criminals who were making preparations to commit dacoity near the canal in village Bhidia at about 11.00 P.M. in the night. It prima facie reveals the criminal mentality of the applicants. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act 2000 was enacted to provide for the care protection treatment development and rehabilitation of such neglected or delinquent juveniles since greater attention was required to be given to such children in conflict with law or those in need of care and protection. The above factors clearly indcate that the parents of the applicants had absolutely no control over the criminal activities of the applicants. Thus there were reasonable grounds for believing that if released on bail it would bring the applicant juveniles into association with known criminals and thereby defeat the ends of justice. Thus the order dated 16-1-2006 passed by the Sessions Judge Ambikapur cannot be faulted with.(5.) In the result this revision is without substance. Being devoid of merit it is dismissed accordingly. Revision dismissed.