2020 (5) TMI 699 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - as per Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 the Board is not required to mechanically release a juvenile or grant him bail as a matter of course merely because the accused before it is a juvenile - HELD THAT - There is no reason or material to interfere with the finding recorded by the Board and affirmed by the appellate Court holding that if the present petitioner a child in conflict with law is released there is every likelihood that he will mingle in the company of violators of law and prodded or prompted to commit similar offences - As per the scheme of the JJ Act more particularly Section 12 thereof a child in conflict with law is to be given benefit of bail. Such benefit can be denied only upon recording a finding that there appears reasonable belief that such release is likely to bring the person into association of any known criminal or expose him to more physical or psychological danger. There is no gainsaying the fact that two more cases of like nature are pending against him. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner the Board and appellate Court were justified in concluding that if he is handed over to the guardian or released on bail he is likely to go in company or in association of known criminals and the same would expose him to crimes of like nature - It is more or less trite that in case charge-sheet is not filed within 60 days or 90 days as the case may be an accused is entitled for bail by virtue of first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 the Code. The government has come out with the taxation and other laws (Relaxation of Certain Provision) Ordinance 2020. By virtue of the provisions contained in this Ordinance the limitation or outer limit for compliance or actions/orders under various enactments has been extended. Concededly no amendment has been introduced in the Code particularly in Section 167(2) - In absence of any amendment in the statute and without there being any remote reference of investigation or provisions of the Code in the order of Supreme Court taking shield of the Supreme Court s order to take away the vested right of an accused is nothing short of violating his right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is directed that the petitioner Pankaj S/o Late Lalshankar Meena shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian Ramesh S/o Dhanji Meena (Uncle) in the sum of 50, 000/- and two sureties of 25, 000/- each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board Udaipur 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 - revision allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the orders rejecting bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
2. Determination of the petitioner's right to bail due to the prosecution's failure to file a charge-sheet within the statutory period, in light of the COVID-19 lockdown.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Orders Rejecting Bail Application:
The petitioner challenged the orders dated 10.2.2020 and 17.2.2020, which rejected his bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The petitioner was accused under Section 392/34 of the IPC and was 17 years old at the time of the alleged offense. The Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court rejected the bail application on the grounds that releasing the petitioner would likely lead him to associate with known criminals and commit similar offenses. The courts emphasized that under Section 12 of the JJ Act, bail can be denied if there is a reasonable belief that the juvenile's release would expose him to physical or psychological danger or association with criminals. The court upheld the findings of the lower courts, noting that two more similar cases were pending against the petitioner, justifying the denial of bail to prevent him from mingling with violators of the law.

2. Right to Bail Due to Failure to File Charge-sheet:
The petitioner argued that he was entitled to bail because the prosecution failed to file a charge-sheet within the statutory period of 60 days, as required under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution contended that the delay was due to the COVID-19 lockdown and relied on the Supreme Court's order dated 23.3.2020 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020, which extended the period of limitation for filing petitions and other legal proceedings due to the lockdown. The court examined the Supreme Court's orders and the relevant statutory provisions, noting that Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. does not provide an outer time limit for completing the investigation but prescribes the consequence of failing to do so within the specified period. The court emphasized that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right of the accused if the charge-sheet is not filed within the prescribed time. The court concluded that the Supreme Court's order did not extend the statutory period for filing charge-sheets under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. and that the prosecution's failure to file the charge-sheet within 60 days entitled the petitioner to bail.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the orders dated 10.2.2020 and 17.2.2020, and directed that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties. The court acknowledged the difficulties posed by the COVID-19 lockdown and allowed the petitioner to furnish the sureties by a stipulated date, emphasizing the importance of the petitioner's personal liberty and the procedural rights under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.