Hemant vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 5112 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 778/2020

Hemant S/o Babulal, Aged About 16 Years, Devli Khard, Tehsil Aklera, Dist. Jhalawad, P.S. Ghatol (Raj.) Through Natural Guardina Mother Sunita Bai W/o Babulal Resident Of Devli Khard, Tehsil Aklera, Dist. Jhalawad. (Presently Confined In Observation Home, Churu).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Akanksa D/o Ratanpal, resident of Nava, P.s. Hamirvas, Dist. Churu. (Complainant)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaipal Singh Mr. A.P. Singh.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, P.P.

Mr.Sreekant Verma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment / Order

23/02/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through

his natural guardian mother Sunita Bai W/o Babulal) as well as

learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.2.

The allegation against the petitioner is for offence under

Sections 343, 376D of I.P.C. The bail application filed by the

petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Churu was rejected vide order

dated 22.10.2020. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal

was filed by the petitioner before the learned Juvenile Court

(2 of 4) [CRLR-778/2020]

(Sessions Judge) Churu and the same has been dismissed by

learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 05.11.2020 .

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 05.11.2020 and

22.10.2020 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has

preferred this revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is

below 18 years of age and there is no evidence to show that if the

juvenile-petitioner is released on bail, then his release is likely to

bring them into association with any known criminal, or expose

them to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that their

release would defeat the ends of justice. It is argued that learned

Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the petitioners are

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.

(3 of 4) [CRLR-778/2020]

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, similarly situated co-accused (1) Vikram Singh, (2)

Mukesh Kumar and (3) Shubham Sharma @ Rahul Sharma have

already been enlarged on bail and the case of present petitioner is

not distinguishable from those of the co-accused.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is

allowed and the order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the Principal

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

05.11.2020 passed by learned Juvenile Court (Sessions Judge)

Churu, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside.

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

Babulal, shall be released on bail in FIR No.308/2020 Police

Station Rajgadh, District Churu upon furnishing a personal bond

(4 of 4) [CRLR-778/2020]

by his natural guardian (mother Sunita Bai W/o Babulal ), 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, Churu; 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

their guardian shall keep proper look after of the delinquent child

and secure them away from the company of known criminals.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

139-prashant/NK-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)