Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 9572 Raj
Judgement Date : 26 May, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 340/2021
Kaushal Verma S/o Bhanwar Lal Verma, Aged About 16 Years, Through Natural Guardian Father Bhanwar Lal Verma, R/o Ward No. 12, Rawla, Police Station Rawla, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.). (Presently Lodged In Observation Home, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devi Lal Rawla, Adv. through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mool Singh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment / Order
26/05/2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through his
natural guardian father Bhanwar Lal Verma) as well as learned Public
Prosecutor.
The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections
307, 212, 120B IPC. The bail application filed by the petitioner under
Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Bikaner was rejected vide order dated 05.03.2021. Being
aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before
the learned Judge, Juvenile Court, Commission for Protection of Child
Rights Act, 2005, Bikaner and the same has been dismissed by learned
Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 15.03.2021.
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 05.03.2021 and 15.03.2021
passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision
petition before this Court.
(2 of 3) [CRLR-340/2021]
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-340/2021]
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 05.03.2021 passed by the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner as well as order dated
15.03.2021 passed by learned Judge, Juvenile Court, Commission for
Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, Bikaner, declining bail to the
petitioner are hereby set aside.
It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Kaushal Verma
S/o Bhanwar Lal Verma, shall be released on bail in FIR No.51/2021, PS
Khajuwala, District Bikaner 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, Bikaner; 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 77-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!