X (Rohit) vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 6184 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 761/2020

X (Rohit) S/o Maula Ram, Aged About 17 Years, B/c Harizan, Minor Through His Natural Guardian, Father Maula Ram S/o Sh. Mohan Lal, B/c Harizan, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Vyayamshall Harizan Basti, Pratap Chowk, Ladpura, Rampura, Police Station, Kota, District Kota.

(Confined In Children Home, Bhilwara).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan

2. Sita Ram S/o Sh. Shanker Gurjar, R/o Madhopura, Shakkergarh Police Station, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dhirendra Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mukhtiyar Khan, PP Mr.Praveen Bhati, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

02/03/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through

his natural guardian father-Maula Ram) and learned Public

Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.2

The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under

Sections 307, 302, 325/34, 120-B IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms

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

the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Paladi,

Distt. Bhilwara was rejected vide order dated 13.04.2020. Being

(2 of 4) [CRLR-761/2020]

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

before the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.1,

Bhilwara and the same has been dismissed by learned Special

Judge vide order dated 18.04.2020.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 13.04.2020 and

18.04.2020 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has

preferred this revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 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.

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.

(3 of 4) [CRLR-761/2020]

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. Moreover, co-accused Lalit @ Kunal has already been

released on bail by this Court vide order dt. 06.10.2020 passed in

S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.447/2020 and the case of the

present petitioner is similar to that of the co-accused.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is

allowed and the order dated 13.04.2020 passed by the Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, PaladiBhilwara as well as order

dated 18.04.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, (POCSO Act

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

aside.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner

Rohit S/o Maula Ram shall be released on bail in FIR No.163/2019,

(4 of 4) [CRLR-761/2020]

P.S. Shakkergarh, Distt. Bhilwara upon furnishing personal bond

by his natural guardian Maula Ram S/o Shri Mohan Lal in the sum

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

the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

Board, Paladi, Distt. Bhilwara 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

162-NK/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)