Harish Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9603 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 423/2021

Harish Choudhary S/o Padma Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Being Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Padma Ram S/o Chena Ram, R/o Utresar, P.s. Luni Dist. Jodhpur. (At Present Lodged In Observation Home, Barmer).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Thana Ram, R/o Gwalnada, Kalyanpur Dist. Barmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary through V.C. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, P.P.

Mr. Pradeep Choudhary through V.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

28/05/2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through

his natural guardian Father (Padma Ram S/o Chena Ram) as well

as learned Public Prosecutor.

The allegation against the petitioner is of offences under

Sections 143, 307, 323, 365, 384, 427 of IPC. The bail application

filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before

learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Barmer was

rejected vide order dated 07.04.2021. Being aggrieved by the said

order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned

Child Court (Sessions Judge), Balotra and the same has been

dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.04.2021.

                                         (2 of 4)                [CRLR-423/2021]


     Being aggrieved of          the orders          dated 07.04.2021     and

19.04.2021 passed by the learned courts below, the petitioner has

preferred this revision petition before this Court.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

similarly placed co-accused Ghewar Ram has been granted bail on

18.03.2021 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal

Misc. Bail Application No.3068/2021. The applicant is in custody

since long and that the report from the probation officer has

already been received and, therefore, the petitioner being juvenile

may be enlarged on bail.

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

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

(3 of 4) [CRLR-423/2021]

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.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is

allowed and the order dated 07.04.2021 passed by learned

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Barmer, rejecting bail

application of the petitioner, as well as order dated 19.04.2021

(4 of 4) [CRLR-423/2021]

passed by learned Child Court (Sessions Judge), Balotra, rejecting

the appeal, are hereby set aside.

It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Harish

Choudhary S/o Padma Ram (juvenile) - through his natural

guardian Father (Padma Ram S/o Chena Ram), shall be released

on bail in relation to FIR No.24/2021 Police Station Kalyanpur,

Barmer, upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian

Father (Padma Ram S/o Chena Ram) 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

93-PKS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)