Arshdeep Singh vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 8646 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 833/2020

Arshdeep Singh S/o Angrej Singh @ Geja Singh, Aged About 15 Years, R/o Daliyanwali, P.S. Lalgarh, Jattan Dist. Sri Ganganagar, Through Natural Guardian mother-Smt. Jasvindra Kaur. (Presently At Remand Home Sriganganagar).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through PP

2. Sardul Singh S/o Jarneal Singh, R/o Daliyanwali Sadulshahar, Sri Ganganagar.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Umesh Kant Vyas, Adv.
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr.Sudheer Tak, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                      Order

30/03/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through his

natural guardian mother Smt.Jasvindra Kaur) as well as learned

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-

State.

The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under

Sections 302, 201 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, Sri Ganganagar was rejected vide order dated

06.11.2020. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was

filed by the petitioner before the learned Judge, Juvenile Court

(2 of 4) [CRLR-833/2020]

(Sessions Judge), Sri Ganganagar and the same has been

dismissed by learned Special Judge vide order dated 12.11.2020 .

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 06.11.2020.and

12.11.2020 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has

preferred this revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the material

witnesses PW-1 to PW-5 have been examined before the learned

trial court and they have not supported the story of the

prosecution. The petitioner is behind the bar since his arrest.

Furthermore, 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-833/2020]

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, the material witnesses PW-1 to PW-5 have not

supported the prosecution story.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is

allowed and the order dated 06.11.2020 passed by the Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sri Ganganagar as well as

order dated 12.11.2020 passed by learned Judge, Juvenile Court

(Sessions Judge), Sri Ganganagar declining bail to the petitioner is

hereby set aside.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner

Arshdeep Singh S/o Angrej Singh @ Geja Singh shall be released

on bail in FIR No.143/2020, P.S. Lalgarhjattan, Distt. Sri

Gangangar, upon furnishing personal bond by his natural guardian

(4 of 4) [CRLR-833/2020]

mother Smt. Jasvindra Kaur 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, Sri

Ganganagar 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

194-NK/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)