Jitendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 794 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 811/2020

1. Jitendra Singh S/o Shri Parwat Singh, Aged About 16 Years, (Minor) By Caste Rajput, R/o Ahore, District Jalore Through His Natural Guardian Father-Shri Parwat Singh S/o Shri Keshar Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Ahore, District Jalore.

2. Mahaveer Singh @ Mepsa S/o Shri Vishan Singh, Aged About 15 Years, (Minor), By Caste Bhomiya Rajput, R/o Ajitpura, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore Through His Natural Guardian Father-Shri Vishan Singh S/o Shri Chhog Singh, By Caste Bhomiya Rajput, R/o Ajitpura, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore.

( Presently detained in Observation Home, Pali).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Babu Lal S/o Shri Jetha Ram, By Caste Sargara, R/o Dujana, Sanderao, District Pali.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ranjeet Singh and Mr.Chakravarti Singh Rathore, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.S.Rajpurohit, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

12/01/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners (juvenile- through

their natural guardian father) as well as learned Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-State.

The allegation against the petitioners is of offence under

Section 379/34 IPC. The bail application filed by the petitioners

under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

(2 of 4) [CRLR-811/2020]

Children). Act, 2015 before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Pali was rejected vide order dated 12.11.2020.

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

petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Pali and the same

has been dismissed by learned Special Judge vide order dated

20.11.2020.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 12.11.2020 and

20.11.2020 passed by the Courts below, the petitioners have

preferred this revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no

evidence to show that if the juvenile-petitioners are released on

bail, then their 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 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 petitioners are in custody

since long time and no further detention of the petitioners is

required for any purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioners

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 petitioners as also the judgment passed by the

Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice

Board.

(3 of 4) [CRLR-811/2020]

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 12.11.2020 passed by the Principal

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

20.11.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali, declining bail

to the petitioners is hereby set aside.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the juvenile accused-

petitioners (1) Jitendra Singh S/o Parwat Singh and (2) Mahaveer

Singh @ Mepsa S/o Vishan Singh shall be released on bail in FIR

No.141/2020, P.S. Sanderao, Distt. Pali upon furnishing personal

bond by their respective father in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each

(4 of 4) [CRLR-811/2020]

along with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of

learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pali with the

stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, they 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

135-NK/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)