Rajendrasinh @ Darbar S/O ... vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 70 Guj

    R/CR.RA/436/2021                            ORDER DATED: 04/01/2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 436 of 2021

==========================================================
  RAJENDRASINH @ DARBAR S/O HARISINH AKHERAYSINH RATHOD
            THRO HARISINH AKHERAJSINH RATHOD
                          Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
JUCKY LUCKY CHAN(8033) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

                           Date : 04/01/2022

                            ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule

for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The applicant, being juvenile delinquent through

his father, has challenged the impugned judgment and

order 26.05.2021 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice

Board, Jamnagar in Juvenile Criminal Case No.17 of

2021 as well as judgment and order dated 02.06.2021

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Jamnagar in Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2021.

3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and

learned APP for the respondent-State.

R/CR.RA/436/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2022

4. It is submitted by learned advocate for the

applicant that the applicant is an innocent person and

has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and

there is no prima facie evidence which can connect the

applicant with the crime in question. It is further

submitted that the applicant is sought to be falsely

involved on the basis of suspicion only and no case is

made out against the applicant. It is further submitted

that the name of the applicant is not named in the FIR

and on the basis of the statement of co-accused, the

present applicant is falsely involved in the present

offence It is further submitted that the applicant is

permanently staying at the address mentioned in the

memo of the application and he is a young boy aged

about 17 years. That learned Courts-below have

committed grave error in appreciating the evidence on

record and not considered the legal and valid defence of

the applicant. Hence, it is requested by him to release

the applicant on bail by allowing this application.

5. Learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly

objected to this application arguing that serious offence

R/CR.RA/436/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2022

is committed by the juvenile delinquent and as per the

investigating papers his prima facie involvement is

clearly established by the prosecution. Hence, he has

requested to dismiss the present application.

6. Having considered the facts and examination of

present case and submissions made by learned advocate

for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-

State, it appears that after registering the offence on

28.01.2021, investigation was completed and

chargesheet was filed against the present applicant and

other co-accused. As there are total 11 accused persons,

out of them, two accused persons viz. Bhimsinh @

Bhimo Govabhai Karmur and Sunil @ Jambu Devshibhai

Rajabhai Nakum had preferred Criminal Misc.

Application No.8606 of 2021 as well as Criminal Misc.

Application No.9320 of 2021 and both were released on

bail by this Court in the same offence vide order dated

23.07.2021. As per the allegations made in the

complaint, out of four unknown persons, one unknown

person tried to injure the complainant through his pistol

but he was not succeeded and thereafter, scuffle was

R/CR.RA/436/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2022

made and the complainant himself also tried to injure

the opposite party i.e. present applicant through this

revolver. Meanwhile, one unknown person caused injury

through his pistol to the complainant and the

complainant received injury on the right side of his face.

The persons arrived at the place of the offence were

absconded. Admittedly, no injury was caused by the

present applicant to the original complainant. From the

affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, it is nowhere

stated by him that any attempt was made by the present

applicant to commit murder of the complainant through

his revolver. Different story was created in the complaint

by the complainant. The name of the present applicant is

not disclosed in the complaint as it was lodged against

Jayesh Muljibhai Ranpariya and four unknown persons.

Here, this Court may refer Section 12(1) of the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

which reads as under:

"12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law - (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a abailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal

R/CR.RA/436/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2022

Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:

Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the persons release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.

(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub- section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.

(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail."

7. From the material placed before this Court, it

R/CR.RA/436/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2022

appears that there is no cogent material and reasonable

grounds in the order while rejecting the bail application

by the board and learned Sessions Judge. There is

nothing on record that applicant will associate with any

known criminal or expose to moral, physical or

psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends

of justice. There is nothing on record that the applicant

is involved in any criminal activity before the crime in

question. There were no cogent reasons to deny the bail

by the Board or Sessions Court as requested by the

present applicant. Considering the aforesaid discussions,

the impugned judgment and order dated 26.05.2021

passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jamnagar

in Juvenile Criminal Case No.17 of 2021 as well as

judgment and order dated 02.06.2021 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in

Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2021 are quashed and set

aside. The applicant shall be released on regular bail on

following terms and conditions.

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

R/CR.RA/436/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2022

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave India without prior permission of the concerned Trial Court;

[e] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;

8. With the above observations, present application is

allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct

Service is permitted.

(B.N. KARIA, J) rakesh/