Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rahul vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:10755) on 4 March, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:10755]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 207/2024
Rahul S/o Shri Madan, Aged About 15 Years, R/o Dalot, P.s.
Salamgarh, Dist. Pratapgarh, Through Natural Guardian Mother
Smt. Nagubai W/o Madan Meena, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Dalot, P.s. Salamgarh, Dist. Pratapgarh, Rajasthan. (At Present
Lodged At Observation Home, Pratapgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Prithviraj Meena S/o Shri Narayan Meena, R/o Diwala,
Salamgarh, Dist. Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Gaur with
Mr. Puna Ram Sen
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP with
Ms. Kamla Goswami
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
04/03/2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through
his natural guardian mother Smt. Nagubai) as well as learned
Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under
Sections 363, 366, 343, 376(1) of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO
Act. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of
the Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Pratapgarh was rejected vide order dated 30.01.2024. Being
aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner
before the learned Children Court (Sessions Judge & Juvenile
Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Pratapgarh, and
[2024:RJ-JD:10755] (2 of 4) [CRLR-207/2024]
the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide
impugned order dated 01.02.2024.
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 30.01.2024 and
01.02.2024 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has
preferred this revision petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the
statement of victim, in which she clearly mentioned that she went
alongwith the petitioner with her own free will and no rape has
been committed by 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.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:10755] (3 of 4) [CRLR-207/2024]
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 30.01.2024 passed by the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh as well as order
dated 01.02.2024 passed by learned Children Court (Sessions
Judge & Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Pratapgarh, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside.
[2024:RJ-JD:10755] (4 of 4) [CRLR-207/2024]
It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Rahul S/o
Shri Madan shall be released on bail, upon furnishing personal
bond by his natural guardian (mother), 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,
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 properly look after the delinquent child and secure
him away from the company of known criminals.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
272-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
