Ashok Kumar vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 5845 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 160/2021

Ashok Kumar S/o Raju Ram, Aged About 17 Years, (Minor), Resident Of Village Salundiya, Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner Through His Natural Guardian And Father Shri Raju Ram S/o Sh. Jeta Ram, Aged 45 Years, R/o Village Salundiya, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner. (Presently Detained In Observation Home, Bikaner).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Through Pp

2. Surendra Kumar, The Then Sub Inspector, Nayashahar, Bikaner.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. S.K. Verma
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP.



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                    Order

01/03/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through

his natural guardian father Shri Raju Ram S/o Shri Jeta Ram) as

well as learned Public Prosecutor.

The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under

Sections 3(1)/25(1-B)(A) of Arms Act. The bail application filed by

the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner was rejected vide order

dated 02.02.2021. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal

was filed by the petitioner before the learned Judge, Child Court,

Child Right Protection Commission Act, 2005, Bikaner, and the

(2 of 4) [CRLR-160/2021]

same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide

impugned order dated 04.02.2021.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 02.02.2021 and

04.02.2021 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has

preferred this revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is

below 18 years of age and there is no evidence to show that if the

juvenile-petitioner is released on bail, then his release is likely to

bring them 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-160/2021]

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.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is

allowed and the order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the Principal

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

04.02.2021 passed by learned Judge, Child Court, Child Right

Protection Commission Act, 2005, Bikaner, declining bail to the

petitioner are hereby set aside.

It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Ashok

Kumar S/o Raju Ram, shall be released on bail in FIR No.66/2021

Police Station Nayashahar, District Bikaner upon furnishing a

personal bond by his natural guardian father (Shri Raju Ram S/o

Shri Jeta Ram), in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with a surety

in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Principal

(4 of 4) [CRLR-160/2021]

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner; 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 95-Ishan/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)