HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 761/2020 X (Rohit) S/o Maula Ram, Aged About 17 Years, B/c Harizan, Minor Through His Natural Guardian, Father Maula Ram S/o Sh. Mohan Lal, B/c Harizan, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Vyayamshall Harizan Basti, Pratap Chowk, Ladpura, Rampura, Police Station, Kota, District Kota.
(Confined In Children Home, Bhilwara).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Sita Ram S/o Sh. Shanker Gurjar, R/o Madhopura, Shakkergarh Police Station, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dhirendra Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mukhtiyar Khan, PP Mr.Praveen Bhati, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Order 02/03/2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through his natural guardian father-Maula Ram) and learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections 307, 302, 325/34, 120-B IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Paladi, Distt. Bhilwara was rejected vide order dated 13.04.2020. Being (Downloaded on 02/03/2021 at 09:53:09 PM) (2 of 4) [CRLR-761/2020] aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.1, Bhilwara and the same has been dismissed by learned Special Judge vide order dated 18.04.2020.
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 13.04.2020 and 18.04.2020 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence to show that if the juvenile-petitioner is released on bail, then his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is argued that learned Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the petitioner is juvenile and entitled to get benefit of provisions of the Act of 2015. Section 12 of the Act of 2015 clearly provides that if the accused is juvenile, then he should be released on bail, but learned Courts below fully ignored the provisions of the Act of 2015. The petitioner is in custody since long time and no further detention of the petitioner is required for any purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the petitioner as also the judgment passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.
(Downloaded on 02/03/2021 at 09:53:09 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-761/2020] I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2015.
The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 conveys the intention of the Legislature to grant bail to the juvenile, irrespective of nature or gravity of the offence, alleged to have been committed by him and bail can be denied only in the case where there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release 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 ends of justice.
In this context, I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the courts below.
Having carefully examined provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act vis-a-vis the orders passed by the courts below, I do not find that any of the exceptional circumstances, to decline bail to a juvenile, as indicated in Section 12 of the Act of 2015, is made out. Moreover, co-accused Lalit @ Kunal has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dt. 06.10.2020 passed in S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.447/2020 and the case of the present petitioner is similar to that of the co-accused.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 13.04.2020 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, PaladiBhilwara as well as order dated 18.04.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, (POCSO Act Cases), No.1, Bhilwara declining bail to the petitioner is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Rohit S/o Maula Ram shall be released on bail in FIR No.163/2019, (Downloaded on 02/03/2021 at 09:53:09 PM) (4 of 4) [CRLR-761/2020] P.S. Shakkergarh, Distt. Bhilwara upon furnishing personal bond by his natural guardian Maula Ram S/o Shri Mohan Lal in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each along with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Paladi, Distt. Bhilwara with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall appear before the said court or any other court, during pendency of the investigation/trial in the case and that his guardian shall keep proper look after of the delinquent child and secure him away from the company of known criminals.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 162-NK/-
(Downloaded on 02/03/2021 at 09:53:09 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)