Raju @ Rajmal vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 6552 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1712/2019

Raju @ Rajmal S/o Sh. Harish Meena, Aged About 17 Years, (Minor), Through Natural Father Sh. Harish S/o Shri Rakma Meena, R/o Thechala, Police Station- Ghantali, District Pratapgarh. (Confined In Children Home- Pratapgarh).

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State, Through Pp

2. Nikhil Kothari S/o Shri Nirmal Kothari, R/o Ghantali, Police Station- Ghantali, District Pratapgarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Rajpurohit, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Arora, Adv.

For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                              Judgment / Order

04/03/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through his

natural guardian father Harish) as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections

457, 380 IPC. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section

12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

Board, Pratapgarh was rejected vide order dated 05.12.2019. Being

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

the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh and the same has

been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated

12.12.2019.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 05.12.2019 and 12.12.2019

passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision

petition before this Court.

(2 of 3) [CRLR-1712/2019]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

below 18 years of age and he has falsely been implicated in this case.

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.

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.

(3 of 3) [CRLR-1712/2019]

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 05.12.2019 passed by the Principal

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

12.12.2019 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh,

declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside.

It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Raju @ Rajmal

S/o Harish Meena, shall be released on bail in CR No.120/2019 Police

Station Ghantali, District Pratapgarh upon furnishing a personal bond by

his Natural guardian, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with a surety in

the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh; 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 131-MS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)