Mahendra vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 7935 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 196/2021

Mahendra S/o Dali Chand, Aged About 12 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Father Sh. Dali Chand S/o Rama, R/o Panwadi, P.s. Pratapnagar, Dist. Udaipur. (Presently Detained In Observation Home, Udaipur).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Through Pp

2. Chagani Bai W/o Sh. Laxman Lal Bhil, R/o Panwadi, Pratapnagar, Dist. Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rawal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP Mr. Jitendra Singh Gaud, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment / Order

22/03/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through

his natural guardian father Shri Dali Chand) as well as learned

Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2-

complainant.

The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under

Sections376/511 IPC and Sections 7/8, 9, 10 of POCSO Act. The

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

of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,

Udaipur was rejected vide order dated 05.02.2021. Being

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

before the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from

Sexual Offence Act, 2012 No.01, Udaipur and the same has been

(2 of 4) [CRLR-196/2021]

dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated

08.02.2021.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 05.02.2021 and

08.02.2021 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has

preferred this revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

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

case. Counsel further submits that compromise has already

arrived at between the parties, a copy of which has been passed

over to this Court. 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.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant concurs

the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties.

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

(3 of 4) [CRLR-196/2021]

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 as also the compromise dated 20.03.2021.

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 05.02.2021 passed by the Principal

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

08.02.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of

Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 No.01, Udaipur, declining

bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside.

It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Mahendra

S/o Dali Chand, shall be released on bail in FIR No.99/2021 Police

Station Pratapnagar, Udaipur upon furnishing a personal bond by

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

(4 of 4) [CRLR-196/2021]

surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Udaipur; 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 150-MS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)