Petitioner granted bail under Juvenile Justice Act due to prosecution's delay. Upheld personal liberty rights.

The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the orders rejecting bail under the Juvenile Justice Act and directing the petitioner's release due to the prosecution's failure to file a charge-sheet within the statutory period, citing the COVID-19 lockdown as no extension for filing charge-sheets was granted. The court emphasized the petitioner's right to default bail and stressed the importance of personal liberty under the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordering release upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties by a specified date.

---

---

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.

---