Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kana vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 April, 2021
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 265/2021
Kana S/o Shri Rama, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through His
Natural Guardian And Father Shri Rama S/o Kalu, R/o bhuga
Bhatt Mines, Police Station Parsola, District Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan. (Presently Detained In Observation Home Udaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Prakash Chandra S/o Shri Dharma Ji Meena, R/o
Kharpina, Dharwa Fala, Police Station Goverdhan Vilas,
Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
06/04/2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through his
natural guardian father Shri Rama) as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections
363, 376 IPC and under Section 4/6 of POCSO Act. The bail application
filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Udaipur was rejected vide
order dated 15.01.2021. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal
was filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge, Protection
of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 No.1, Udaipur and the same
has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order
dated 05.02.2021.
(2 of 3) [CRLR-265/2021]
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 15.01.2021 and 05.02.2021
passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision
petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challan of the
case has already been presented. Petitioner is below 18 years of age
and he has falsely been implicated in this case. Further 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.
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
(3 of 3) [CRLR-265/2021]
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.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is
allowed and the order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Udaipur as well as order dated
05.02.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of Children
from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 No.1, Udaipur, declining bail to the
petitioner are hereby set aside.
It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Kana S/o Shri
Rama, shall be released on bail in FIR No.347/2020 Police Station
Goverdhanvilas, District Udaipur upon furnishing a personal bond by his
Natural guardian, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with a surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Udaipur; 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
170-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
