Jaskaran Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the order dated 3rd March, 1998 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, who dismissed the appeal of Shri Jaskaran Singh against the order dated 20th January, 1998 passed by the Court of Juvenile Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana.

A few facts can be noticed :

Shri Jaskaran Singh along with Shri Harinder Singh were involved in a case under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, registered vide F.I.R. No. 109 dated 22nd June, 1997 at Police Station Malerkotla, District Sangrur. Shri Jaskaran Singh filed an application for grant of bail in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (Juvenile Court) and the said bail application was declined vide order dated 20th January, 1998. Aggrieved by the said order, Shri Jaskaran Singh filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, under Section 37 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and the said appeal was dismissed vide impugned order dated 3rd March, 1998 on the ground that the said appeal was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 37 and Section 2(e) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, present revision petition has been filed by Shri Jaskaran Singh, which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Shri H.N. Mehtani, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Shri J.S. Brar, D.A.G. Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State.

The offence was allegedly committed in this case on 22nd June, 1997. The petitioner was less than 16 years of age on the date of the commission of the alleged offence. As per the provisions of Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail unless the Court comes to the conclusion that there appears to be a reasonable ground for believing that release of the juvenile was likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger or that this release would defeat the ends of justice. According to the allegations of the prosecution the role attributed to the present petitioner is that he caught hold of the collar of the deceased and allegedly facilitated his coaccused for the commission of the crime.

Before I further deal into the matter, it has been brought to my notice that the coaccused of the petitioner have been acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction on 1st April, 1998. There is not an iota of evidence on the record that the release of the present petitioner shall expose him to any moral danger or that it would defeat the ends of justice or that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with known criminals. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, vide order dated 20th January, 1998 has not advanced any cogent reasons for declining the bail application of the petitioner. The sole point which arises for determination is whether the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, declining the bail application of the juvenile was appealable or not. According to Section 37 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, "Subject to the provisions of this section, any person aggrieved by an order made by a competent authority under this Act may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the Court of Session". Thus the reading of the above provision would show that the appeal was legally maintainable. The competent authority has been defined under section 2(d) of the said Act, which means, in relation to neglected juveniles, a Board and, in relation to delinquent juveniles, a Juvenile Court and where no such Board or Juvenile Court has been constituted, includes any Court empowered under sub section (2) of Section 7 to exercise the powers conferred on a Board or Juvenile Court.

Admittedly present petitioner is not covered by the definition of "Neglected Juvenile". But whether he is covered by the definition of "Delinquent Juvenile" or not is yet another point to be determined by this Court. "Delinquent Juvenile" has again been defined under Section 2(e) of the Juvenile Justice Act, according to which, a juvenile who has been found to have committed an offence. The interpretation which has been given by the learned Sessions Judge Ludhiana, does not appear to be correct. According to him, "In the present case the appellant has not been found to have committed an offence. He is, therefore, not covered within the ambit of delinquent juvenile." The words "to have committed an offence" do not relate to the finding of the Court but the same relate to the Investigating Agency, which has preferred to put in the challan against the juvenile. After the investigation, the present petitioner was challaned along with his coaccused Shri Harinder Singh. In this view of the matter, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the definition of "delinquent juvenile" and if his application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the order passed by the magistrate was appealable under Section 37 of the Juvenile Justice Act and as such the appeal was competent. To strengthen the above observation of this Court, reliance can be placed on an authority of this Court reported as Daljit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1992 Crl.L.J. 1051. It was observed by his Lordship:

"Definitions given in S. 2(e)(h) and (n) make it clear that when a juvenile has committed an offence (may be murder), he is called a delinquent juvenile. Delinquent juvenile might have committed any heinous crime, the matter can be inquired into and he can only be proceeded against under the Act.

In these circumstances it was not open for the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, to dismiss the appeal of the present petitioner, holding as not maintainable. Resultantly, the said order is hereby set aside.

Now the ancillary point which arises for determination is whether this Court should remand the case to the Court of Sessions for deciding the appeal afresh or that it should allow the present bail application itself under Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Keeping in view the fact that the main accused has already been acquitted, a great prejudice and hardship would be done, if the juvenile is again directed to the Court of Session.

Resultantly, the present petition is hereby allowed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby set aside. The petitioner is granted bail and directions are given to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Juvenile Court, Ludhiana) to release the petitioner on bail. However, the petitioner shall face the proceedings according to law.