Narsingha Ram Vinod vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 5051 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 65/2021

Narsingha Ram @ Vinod S/o Sohan Ram, Aged About 13 Years, Gado Ka Bas, Tapu, Police Station Osia, District Jodhpur through His Natural Guardian Father-Sohan Ram Son Tila Ram, Resident Of Gado Ka Bas, Tapu, Police Station Osia, District Jodhpur.

(Presently Detained Into Juvenile Observation Home, Jodhpur).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.

2. Ladu Ram S/o Gomad Ram, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Village Tapu, Tehsil Osia, District Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent              :     Mr.Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
No.1-State

For Respondent No.2         :     Mr.Nikhil Bhandari, Adv.
Complainant



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                       Order

23/02/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through

his natural guardian father Sohan Ram) as well as learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

Earlier, the criminal revision petition preferred by the

petitioner was dismissed vide order dt. 21.08.2020 with liberty to

file fresh revision petition after recording of the statement of the

prosecutrix. Now, the prosecutrix has been examined before the

trial court as PW-1.

(2 of 4) [CRLR-65/2021]

The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under

Section 376 IPC. 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, Jodhpur was rejected vide order dated 05.01.2021.

Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the

petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge (Children Court),

Jodhpur Metropolitan and the same has been dismissed by learned

Special Judge vide order dated 07.01.2021.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 05.01.2021 and

07.01.2021 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

(3 of 4) [CRLR-65/2021]

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 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 and having gone through

the statement of the prosecutrix, this revision petition is allowed

and the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the Principal

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

07.01.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Children Court),

Jodhpur Metropolitan, declining bail to the petitioner is hereby set

aside.

(4 of 4) [CRLR-65/2021]

Accordingly, it is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner

Narsingha Ram @ Vinod S/o Sohan Ram shall be released on bail

in FIR N.58/2020, P.S. Osiya upon furnishing personal bond by his

natural guardian Sohan Ram S/o Tila Ram 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,

Jodhpur 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

141-NK/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)