Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sonu vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 July, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 852/2020
X S/o Sh. Kaluram Bhargav, Aged About 17 Years, R/o
Beermana, P.s. Rajiyasar, (Rajasthan), Through Legal Guardian-
Kaluram Bhargav (Father). (Presently Lodged At Juvenile Home,
Sriganganagar).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Shankar Lal S/o Sh. Ramkumar, R/o 8, D.w.m. Beermana,
P.s. Rajiyasar (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP
Mr. K.V. Vyas
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment
06/07/2021
The petitioner child 'X' son of Mr. Kaluram Bhargav in
conflict with law (identity of the child has been protected in view
of the direction given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Shilpa Mittal vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported in
AIR 2020 SC 405) has been confined in connection with FIR
No.85/2020 registered at Police Station Rajiyasar, District Sri
Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 302, 365, 323, 342,
367, 147, 148 & 149 IPC and is lodged at the Observation Home,
Juvenile Justice Board, Sri Ganganagar. The bail application
preferred on his behalf by his natural guardian father Mr. Kaluram
Bhargav under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act stands
rejected by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sri
(2 of 3) [CRLR-852/2020]
Ganganagar by order dated 01.10.2020. The appeal preferred
against the said order under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice
Act also stands rejected by the learned Child Court (Sessions
Judge), Sri Ganganagar by order dated 08.10.2020. These two
orders are assailed by the petitioner through his natural guardian
in this revision preferred under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. read
with Section 401 CrPC and Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
I have heard and considered the submissions advanced
by learned counsel representing the parties and have gone
through the impugned orders.
Upon a perusal of the challan papers and more
particularly, the postmortem report of the deceased Om Prakash,
it is clear that few bruises were noticed on his body which resulted
into fractures of nasal bone, left knee and right wrist. The medical
jurist opined that these multiple bruises and fractures could cause
shock. However, no definite opinion was given regarding the cause
of death of Shri Om Prakash. Manifestly on going through the
postmortem report, it is clear that there was no injury on any of
the vital body parts/organs. Injured Shankarlal received four
superficial blunt weapon injuries of minimal size which were
simple in nature. As per the statement of Shankarlal, the injured
eyewitness, the allegations against the petitioner are omnibus in
nature. The petitioner is a boy aged 17 years and 11 months as
per the order rejecting bail. He is confined in the observation
home in connection with the above mentioned offence and the
(3 of 3) [CRLR-852/2020]
inquiry pending before the Juvenile Justice Board shall consume
time.
In this background, I am of the opinion that the conditions
of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act are duly satisfied.
Otherwise also, it is the legal obligation of the guardian to ensure
that the child does not come in contact with known/unknown
criminals during the pendency the inquiry.
In this background, I am of the opinion that the
petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of
the inquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board.
Consequently, the instant revision is allowed. The
impugned order dated 08.10.2020 passed by the learned Child
Court (Sessions Judge), Sri Ganganagar and the order dated
01.10.2020 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Sri Ganganagar are set aside. It is ordered that the
accused-petitioner 'X' S/o Mr. Kaluram Bhargav arrested in
connection with FIR No.85/2020 registered at Police Station
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar shall be released on bail;
provided his natural guardian Mr. Kaluram Bhargav furnishes
a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of
Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned court below
with the stipulation to appear before the Board on all dates of
hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
46-Sudhir Asopa/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
