Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arun Rao vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:10674) on 4 March, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:10674]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 203/2024
Arun Rao S/o Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About 17 Years, R/o
Murlidhar Vyas Colony, Tehsil And Dist. Bikaner Minor Through
His Natural Guardian Mothe Sundri Devi S/o Shri Shankerlal, R/o
Murlidhar Vyas Colony, Tehsil And Dist. Bianer. (Presently Lodged
In Observation Home, Bikaner.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas K Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aneesh Bhurat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
04/03/2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through
his natural guardian mother Sundri Devi) as well as learned Public
Prosecutor.
The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under
Sections 457, 380 & 34 of the IPC. The bail application filed by the
petitioner under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015
before learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Bikaner was rejected vide order dated 15.01.2024. Being
aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner
before the learned Judge, Juvenile Court, Child Protection
Commission Act, 2005, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No.19/2024
and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide
impugned order dated 02.02.2024.
[2024:RJ-JD:10674] (2 of 4) [CRLR-203/2024]
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 15.01.2024 and
02.02.2024 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has
preferred this revision petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challan
has already been presented and no investigation is pending
against the petitioner. Further, offence is triable by the Magistrate
and 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 detained in
observation home in Bikaner 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:10674] (3 of 4) [CRLR-203/2024]
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 15.01.2024 passed by the learned
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner as well as
order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Juvenile
Court, Child Protection Commission Act, 2005, Bikaner, declining
bail to the petitioner is hereby set aside.
It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Juvenile Arun Rao
S/o Shri Shankar Lal shall be released on bail in FIR No.412/2023
Police Station Naya Shahar, Dist. Bikaner upon furnishing a
personal bond by his natural guardian in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
each along with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
learned Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner; with
[2024:RJ-JD:10674] (4 of 4) [CRLR-203/2024]
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
look after the delinquent child and secure him away from the
company of known criminals.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
34-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
