Likhma Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 238 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 4/2021

Likhma Ram S/o Alwar Ram, Aged About 17 Years (Minor), resident of Bhaiser Kotwali, Police Station Mathania, Jodhpur Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Dhalki Devi R/o Bhaiser Kotwali, Police Station Mathania, Jodhpur. (Presently Detained In Observation Home, Jodhpur).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.

2. Smt. Baby W/o Jitendra, By Caste Nat, R/o Bhaiser Kotwali, Police Station Mathania, Jodhpur.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr.Avinash Bhati, Adv. through VC
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr.Sudheer Tak, PP
                               Mr.Manish Surana, Adv. through VC



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                    Order

07/01/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through

his natural guardian mother Smt. Dhalki Devi) as well as learned

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-

State.

The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under

Sections 363, 366-A, 376-D IPC and Section 5(G)(L)(N)/6 of

POCSO Act. 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 17.11.2020.

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

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

petitioner before the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases),

Jodhpur Metropolitan and the same has been dismissed by learned

Special Judge vide order dated 21.12.2020.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 17.11.2020 and

21.12.2020 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

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-4/2021]

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, the prosecutrix has been examined before the trial

court as PW-1 and she has turned hostile.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is

allowed and the order dated 17.11.2020 passed by the Principal

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

21.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, (POCSO Act Cases),

Jodhpur Metropolitan declining bail to the petitioner is hereby set

aside.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner

Likhma Ram S/o Alwar Ram shall be released on bail in FIR

No.183/2019, P.S. Mathania, Distt. Jodhpur upon furnishing

personal bond by his natural guardian mother Smt. Dhalki Devi 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

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

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

85-NK/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)