Narendra Kumar Godara vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9426 Raj

(1 of 4) [CRLR-185/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 185/2021

Narendra Kumar Godara S/o Shri Krishan Lal Jat, Aged About 17 Years, Through His Natural Guardian Father Krishan Lal Jat S/o Shri Devi Lal Jat, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ward No. 05, Fatuhi, Sriganganagar (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In Observation Home, Sriganganagar).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Pola Ram S/o Buddh Ram, By Caste Meghwal,r/o Shivpur Fatuhi, Police Station Hindumalkot, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Rakesh Matoria (through VC)
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P.
                               Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas (through VC)



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                    Order

12/05/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through

his natural guardian father Father Krishan Lal Jat S/o Shri Devi Lal

Jat) as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

The allegation against the petitioner is of offences under

Sections 302, 341, 323, 109, 147, 148 and 149 IPC and Section

27 of Arms Act and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989. The bail application filed by the petitioner

under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before learned Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sriganganagar was rejected

vide order dated 18.12.2020. Being aggrieved by the said order,

(2 of 4) [CRLR-185/2021]

an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Session Court,

Sriganganagar and the same has been dismissed vide impugned

order dated 7.1.2021.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 18.12.2020 and

7.1.2021 passed by the learned courts below, the petitioner has

preferred this revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Challan of

the case has already been presented in this case. Petitioner is

below 18 years of age and there is no evidence to show that if the

juvenile-petitioner is released on bail, then his release is likely to

bring them into association with any known criminal, or expose

him 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 totally ignored the provisions of the Act of 2015. The

petitioner is in custody since long 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 learned 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 learned

Juvenile Justice Board.

(3 of 4) [CRLR-185/2021]

Learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the

petition.

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 as well as the report of the

probation officer.

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 18.12.2020 passed by the learned

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sriganganagar as well

as order dated 7.1.2021 passed by Session Court, Sriganganagar,

rejecting the appeal, are hereby set aside.

It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Narendra

Kumar Godara (juvenile) - through his natural guardian father

(4 of 4) [CRLR-185/2021]

(Shri Krishan Lal Jat S/o Shri Devi Lal Jat), shall be released on

bail in relation to FIR No.220/2020 Police Station Hindumalkot,

District Sriganganagar, upon furnishing a personal bond by his

natural guardian (father Shri Krishan Lal Jat S/o Shri Devi Lal Jat)

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

to the satisfaction of learned trial court; 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 them away from the company of

known criminals.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 70-pradeep/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)