Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
D vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:10383) on 1 March, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:10383]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 286/2024
D S/o Narsi Ram, Aged About 17 Years, R/o Nethrana, Police
Station Gogamedi, Dist. Hanumangarh Through His Guardian
Rajveer Saharan, S/o Pratap Singh, R/o Nathrana, Police Station
Gogamedi, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In
Kishore Greh Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Bodhraj S/o Ramdayal, R/o Ward No. 4, Hethrana,
Bhadra, Police Station Gogamedi, Dist. Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aneesh Bhurat, PP assisted by
Mr. C.P. Marwan
Mr. Bharat Shrimali
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
01/03/2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through his
natural guardian) as well as learned Public Prosecutor and learned
counsel for the complainant.
The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections
452, 341, 323, 377, 143 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The bail
application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offence Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh was rejected vide order dated
23.01.2024. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by
the petitioner before the learned Judge, Juvenile Court, Hanumangarh
[2024:RJ-JD:10383] (2 of 4) [CRLR-286/2024]
and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide
impugned order dated 09.02.2024.
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 23.01.2024 and 09.02.2024
passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision
petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
below 18 years of age and he has falsely been implicated in this case.
Counsel further submits that compromise has also been arrived at
between the parties and there is no other criminal antecedent against
the petitioner. Further 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.
Counsel for the complainant concurs the fact of compromise
arrived at between the parties, however, 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:10383] (3 of 4) [CRLR-286/2024]
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 23.01.2024 passed by the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh as well as order dated
09.02.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Juvenile Court,
Hanumangarh, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside.
It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner D S/o Narsi
Ram, shall be released on bail in FIR No.10/2024 Police Station
Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh upon furnishing a personal bond
by his natural guardian, 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 Board, Hanumangarh; with the
stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall appear
[2024:RJ-JD:10383] (4 of 4) [CRLR-286/2024]
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
21-arjun/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
