Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lalit Solanki vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 March, 2021
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 132/2021
Lalit Solanki S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 17 Years 7
months, resident of Hamaton Ki Guwar, Police Station Devgarh,
District Rajsamand (Raj.) through Natural Guardian Brother
Hitesh S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Aged About 25 Years R/o Hamaton
Ki Guwar, Police Station Devgarh, District Rajsamand (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Roshan Lal, By Caste Brahmin,
R/o Khudana, P.S. Mahendragarh, District Mahendragarh
(Hariyana) At Present Supervisor, Vishwa Hind Logistic
Ltd. AG-28, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Shyam Paliwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
02/03/2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through
his natural guardian brother Hitesh) as well as learned Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under
Sections 397, 302, 201, 120-B IPC. 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, Jodhpur was rejected vide order dated
22.12.2020. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was
filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge
(2 of 4) [CRLR-132/2021]
(Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005) Cases,
Jodhpur and the same has been dismissed by learned Special
Judge vide order dated 02.01.2021.
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 22.12.2020 and
02.01.2021 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has
preferred this revision petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge-sheet
has been filed in the instant case after expiry of statutory period
of 90 days. 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
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-132/2021]
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, charge-sheet has been filed in the instant case
after expiry of statutory period of 90 days
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is
allowed and the order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur as well as order dated
02.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, (Commission for
Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005) Cases, Jodhpur declining bail
to the petitioner is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner
Lalit Solanki S/o Bhanwar Lal shall be released on bail in FIR
NO.385/2020, P.S. Bilara upon furnishing personal bond by his
natural guardian brother Hitesh S/o Bhanwar Lal in the sum of
(4 of 4) [CRLR-132/2021]
Rs.1,00,000/- each along with a surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Jodhpur 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
103-NK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
