Rajasthan High Court
Pukhraj @ Akku S/O Late Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 July, 2021
Bench: Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 606/2021
Pukhraj @ Akku S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal (Minor), Aged About
16 Years, R/o Near Mosque Kharawa, Police Station Beawar
Sadar, District Ajmer Through His Natural Gurdian Elder Brother
Mahendra S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal R/o Near Mosque, Kharawa,
Police Station Beawar Sadar District Ajmer (Raj) (Presently
Confined At Juvenile Justice Home Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
2. Ravikumar S/o Mukesh, Village Kharawa, Tehsil Masuda,
District Ajmer (Raj)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.P.S.Rajawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Judgment / Order
14/07/2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through
representative) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the respondent-State.
The allegation against the petitioner is of offence/s
leveled against him in the matter. The bail application filed by the
petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before the
concerned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, was
rejected vide impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order,
an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Appellate
Court and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate
Court vide impugned order.
(2 of 4) [CRLR-606/2021]
Being aggrieved of the impugned orders passed by the
Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition
before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
submitted that petitioner is below 18 years of age and he has
been falsely involved in the case without any material evidence.
Further 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 him 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 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. Learned Courts below in
quite cursory manner have declined bail to the applicant-
petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended
the impugned orders passed by the courts below.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions
of the Act of 2015. It appears that for the protection of juvenile,
(3 of 4) [CRLR-606/2021]
this special Act has been enacted. Section 12 of the Act of 2015
indicates that if a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is
brought before a Board, such juvenile shall be released on bail,
with or without surety, or placed under the supervision of a
Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution.
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 impugned orders passed by courts
below, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside.
It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner herein shall
be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond by
representative, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand
(4 of 4) [CRLR-606/2021]
Only) along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of concerned Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board; 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.
The SHO, Police Station, Beawar Sadar, Distt. Ajmer is
further directed to inform respondents by wireless or any other
mode for compliance of this order.
The criminal revision petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J
SANDEEP RAWAT /56
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
