Vinod Kumar vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 241 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 686/2020

Vinod Kumar S/o Bhanwar Lal Kumawat, Aged About 17 Years, Through His Natural Guardian Mother Geeta R/o Taswariya, Police Station Gulabpura, District Bhilwara (Rajasthan). (At Present Lodged In Observation Home, Bhilwara).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Through P.p.

2. Daalchand S/o Mangu Ji, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Kumar, R/o Kumar Mohalla Hura, Halka Police Station Gulabpura, District Bhilwara.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. RS Chundawat - on video call
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Sudheer Tak PP



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                      Order

07/01/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through

his natural guardian mother Geeta) as well as learned Public

Prosecutor.

The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under

Sections 363, 366, 344, 376 of IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act. The

bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act

of 2015 before learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, East Bhilwara was rejected vide order

dated 27.07.2020. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal

was filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge,

POCSO and Child Right Protection Commission Act No.1, Bhilwara

in Criminal Appeal No.67/2020 and the same has been dismissed

(2 of 4) [CRLR-686/2020]

by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated

18.09.2020.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 27.07.2020 and

18.09.2020 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has

preferred this revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is below 18 years of age and he has falsely been implicated in this

case, 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.

However, 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-686/2020]

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.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is

allowed and the order dated 27.07.2020 passed by the learned

Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, East

Bhilwara as well as order dated 18.09.2020 passed by learned

Special Judge POCSO and Child Right Protection Commission Act

No.1, Bhilwara, declining bail to the petitioner is hereby set aside.

It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Vinod

Kumar S/o Bhanwar Lal Kumawat, shall be released on bail in FIR

No.74/2020 P.S. Gulabpura, District Bhilwara upon furnishing a

personal bond by his natural guardian (mother Geeta), in the sum

of Rs.1,00,000/- along with a surety in the like amount to the

satisfaction of learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, East Bhilwara; with the stipulation that on all

subsequent dates of hearing, he shall appear before the said court

(4 of 4) [CRLR-686/2020]

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 them away from the company of

known criminals.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 19-Anshul/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)