X vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9589 Raj

(1 of 4) [CRLR-431/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 431/2021

X S/o Rambux Nayak, Aged About 17 Years, Minor, R/o Gopalpura, Tahnal, Shahpura Police Station, Dist. Bhilwara, Through His Natural Guardian, Sister Smt. Dur Devi W/o Satya Narain, B/c Nayak, R/o Sadar Bazar, Mali Khera, Tehsil Shahpura, Dist. Bhilwara. (Confined In Children Home, Bhilwara).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

2. Smt. Manna Devi W/o Shyam Lal, B/c Nayak, Shyam Nagar, Pratap Nagar Police Station, Bhilwara, Dist. Bhilwara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JVS Deora (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shravan Bishnoi, P.P.

Mr. Jagdish Singh, for complainant (through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

27/05/2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through

his natural guardian Sister (Smt. Dur Devi W/o Satya Narain) as

well as learned Public Prosecutor.

The allegation against the petitioner is of offences under

Sections 363, 366-A, 344, 376/D of IPC and Sections 3/4, 5(L)/6,

16/17 of POCSO Act. The bail application filed by the petitioner

under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before learned President of

Juvenile Justice Board, Bhilwara was rejected vide order dated

19.4.2021. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed

by the petitioner before the Learned Special Judge, POCSO Act

(2 of 4) [CRLR-431/2021]

Cases No.1, Bhilwara and the same has been dismissed vide

impugned order dated 23.4.2021.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 19.4.2021 and

23.4.2021 passed by the learned courts below, the petitioner has

preferred this revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-

accused Satyanarayan @ Sattu has been granted bail on

18.5.2021 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal

Misc. Bail Application No.5912/2021 (Satyanarayan @ Sattu v.

State of Rajasthan through P.P.). It is further submitted that the

parties have entered into compromise as the dispute pertain to

Nata Marriage and as such the FIR was lodged. The report of the

probation officer has been sought, which has been received.

Further submissions have been made the 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

(3 of 4) [CRLR-431/2021]

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.

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.

(4 of 4) [CRLR-431/2021]

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is

allowed and the order dated 19.4.2021 passed by learned

President of Juvenile Justice Board, Bhilwara, rejecting bail

application of the petitioner, as well as order dated 23.4.2021

passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.1,

Bhilwara, rejecting the appeal, are hereby set aside.

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

Rambux Nayak (juvenile) - through his natural guardian sister

(Smt. Dur Devi W/o Satya Narain), shall be released on bail in

relation to FIR No.151/2021 Police Station Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara,

upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian sister

(Sister Smt. Dur Devi W/o Satya Narain) 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 56-Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)