Harish vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 9189 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 188/2021

Harish S/o Babulal, Aged About 17 Years, B/c Meena, (Minor) Through His Natural Guardian Babulal Father, Resident Of Sera Fala Vasmala, Thana Td At Present South Extention Yojana, P.s. Goverdhan Vilash, Udaipur, Dist. Udaipur. (At Present Lodged In Child Observation Home, Udaipur).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Through Pp

2. Smt. Neetu Vadhwani W/o Rajesh Vadhwani, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Near Om Banna Temple South Extention, P.s. Goverdhan Vilash, Dist. Udaipur.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. P.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Mool Singh Bhati, PP.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                      Order

09/04/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through

his natural guardian father Babulal) 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 08.01.2021. 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 And Protection of Children Right Act,

(2 of 4) [CRLR-188/2021]

2005 No.1, Udaipur and the same has been dismissed by learned

Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 16.01.2021.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 08.01.2021 and

16.01.2021 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.

(3 of 4) [CRLR-188/2021]

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.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is

allowed and the order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Udaipur as well as order dated

16.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of

Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 & Protection of Children

Right Act, 2005 No.1, Udaipur, declining bail to the petitioner are

hereby set aside.

It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Harish S/o

Babulal, shall be released on bail in FIR No.303/2020 Police

Station Goverdhan Vilash, 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

(4 of 4) [CRLR-188/2021]

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 32-Ishan/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)