Rajasthan High Court
Sanjay Kumar Meena S/O Shri Meetha ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 August, 2022
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1314/2022
Sanjay Kumar Meena S/o Shri Meetha Lal, Aged About 16 Years,
R/o Agawali, P.s. Sikandra District Dausa Through His Natural
Guardian Father Meetha Lal S/o Kanhaiya R/o Agawali, P.s.
Sikandra District Dausa (At Present At Juvenile Home At Dausa)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umashanker Pandey, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
23/08/2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through
his natural guardian and Father Meetha Lal S/o Kanhaiya ) as well
as learned Public Prosecutor.
The allegation against the petitioner is for offences under
Sections 376D, 354, 323, 341, 504, 506 IPC & Section 5/6 of the
POCSO Act. The bail application filed by the petitioner under
Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Dausa was rejected vide order dated 28.07.2022.
Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the
petitioner before the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act and
Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 and the same
has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned
order dated 02.08.2022.
(2 of 4) [CRLR-1314/2022]
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 28.07.2022 and
02.08.2022 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has
preferred this revision petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 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
(3 of 4) [CRLR-1314/2022]
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 28.07.2022 passed by the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dausa as well as order dated
02.08.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012
and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 declining
bail to the petitioner is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner
Sanjay Kumar Meena S/o Shri Meetha Lal shall be released on
bail in FIR No.367/2022, P.S. Sikandra, District Dausa, upon
furnishing personal bond by his natural guardian Father Meetha
Lal S/o Kanhaiya 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, Dausa 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
(4 of 4) [CRLR-1314/2022]
the delinquent child and secure him away from the company of
known criminals.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
RAVI KHANDELWAL /709
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
