Raju @ Rajesh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 16484 Raj

(1 of 4) [CRLR-871/2021]

pHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 871/2021

Raju @ Rajesh S/o Kanti Lal, Aged About 16 Years, Through Natural Guardian Father Kanti Lal S/o Punja R/o Bodamali Police Thana Dhambola Dist. Dungarpur. (At Present In Child Observation Home Dungarpur).

                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Jitendra Ojha
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. MS Bhati, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                      Order

28/10/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through

his natural guardian father Kanti Lal S/o Punja) as well as learned

Public Prosecutor.

The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under

Section 413 IPC. The bail application filed by the petitioner under

Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Dungarpur, was rejected vide order dated

21.09.2021. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was

filed by the petitioner before the learned Children Court (Session

Judge and Commission for Protection of Children Rights Act, 2005)

Dungarpur, and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate

Court vide impugned order dated 05.10.2021.

                                          (2 of 4)                   [CRLR-871/2021]



     Being aggrieved of           the orders          dated 21.09.2021        and

05.10.2021 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has

preferred this revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similar

situated co-accused Girish S/o Kanti Lal has already been enlarged

on bail by this Court. 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 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.

(3 of 4) [CRLR-871/2021]

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 21.09.2021 passed by the Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dungarpur as well as order

dated 05.10.2021 passed by learned Children Court (Session

Judge and Commission for Protection of Children Rights Act, 2005)

Dungarpur, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside.

It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Raju @

Rajesh S/o Kanti Lal, shall be released on bail in FIR No.292/2021,

Police Station Dhambola, District Dungarpur upon furnishing a

personal bond by his natural guardian father (Kanti Lal S/o Punja),

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

(4 of 4) [CRLR-871/2021]

Board, Dungarpur; 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

62-Samvedana/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)