Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dilip vs State on 27 May, 2021
Bench: Manoj Kumar Judge)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 110/2021
Dilip S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 17 Years (Minor) Through
His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kanku Bai W/o Shri Bhanwar
Lal, R/o Village Hinglat, P.S. Salamgarh, District Pratapgarh
(Rajasthan).
(Presently Lodged In Juvenile Observation Home, Pratapgarh).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Kumari Meera D/o Shri Udai Lal, Aged About 18 Years,
resident of Village Veerpur, P.S. Suhagpura, District
Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Shambhoo Singh, Adv. through VC
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.S.S.Rajpurohit, PP
For Respondent No.2 : None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
27/05/2021
The matter comes up for orders on an application filed on
behalf of the petitioner for early hearing of the criminal revision.
For the reasons mentioned in the application (Inward
No.01/2021), the application is allowed. The matter is heard on
merit today itself.
The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under
Sections 363, 366, 376 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, Pratapgarh was rejected vide order dated
(2 of 4) [CRLR-110/2021]
18.01.2021. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was
filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge,
Pratapgarh and the same has been dismissed by learned Sessions
Judge vide order dated 19.01.2021.
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 18.01.2021 and
19.01.2021 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has
preferred this revision petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
prosecutrix is major. She went with the petitioner out of her own
free will and stayed with the petitioner for three days. The FIR was
lodged after about two months of the incident. Challan of the case
has already been presented. Moreover, 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
(3 of 4) [CRLR-110/2021]
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.
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 18.01.2021 passed by the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh as well as order
dated 19.01.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh
declining bail to the petitioner is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner
Dilip S/o Bhanwar Lal shall be released on bail in FIR
No.108/2020, P.S. Suhagpura upon furnishing personal bond by
(4 of 4) [CRLR-110/2021]
his natural guardian mother Smt. Kanku Bai W/o Bhanwar Lal 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, Pratapgarh 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
86-NK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
