Badal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9441 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 201/2021

Badal S/o Chagan Lal, Aged About 17 Years, Through Legal Guardian Father Sh. Chagan Lal S/o Huka Ji R/o Yadav Basti Bhinda, P.s. Dhambola, Dist. Dungarpur. (Confined In Children Home, Dungarpur).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Vir Ji S/o Nana, R/o Bhinda Falan Waka Khanda, P.s.

Dhambola, Dist. Dungarpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek through V.C. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, P.P.

Mr. Anuj Sahlot through V.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

13/05/2021

The allegation against the petitioner is of offences under

Sections 363 and 305 IPC and Section 16 and 17 of the POCSO

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

the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

('the Act of 2015') before learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Dungarpur was rejected vide order dated

04.02.2021.

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

petitioner before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Dungarpur and

the same has been dismissed vide impugned order dated

15.02.2021.

                                         (2 of 4)                 [CRLR-201/2021]


     Being aggrieved of          the orders          dated 04.02.2021        and

15.02.2021 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 23.01.2021 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.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the report of the probation officer has already been received

and from the charge-sheet itself there is no material available to

connect the petitioner with the suicide committed by the

deceased.

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

(3 of 4) [CRLR-201/2021]

the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the learned

Juvenile Justice Board.

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 04.02.2021 passed by the learned

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dungarpur as well as

order dated 15.02.2021 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act,

Dungarpur, rejecting the appeal, are hereby set aside.

(4 of 4) [CRLR-201/2021]

It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Badal S/o

Chagan Lal (Juvenile) - through his natural guardian father

(Sh. Chagan Lal S/o Huka Ji), shall be released on bail in

relation to FIR No.25/2021 Police Station Kotwali Dungarpur,

District - Dungarpur, upon furnishing a personal bond by his

natural guardian (father Sh. Chagan Lal S/o Huka Ji) 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

100-PKS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)