Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
V vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:33993) on 1 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:33993]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 857/2025
V S/o H, Aged About 17 Years, Through His Natural Guardian
Father H S/o J Resident Of Ward No. 05, Sirasar PS Pallu District
Hanumangarh Rajasthan (Presently Lodged In Observation Home
Juvenile Justice Board Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Prahalad S/o Bhaira Ram, R/o Chandedi Badi Pallu District
Hanumangarh Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, AAAG
Mr. P.K. Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
01/08/2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through
his natural guardian and Father 'H') as well as learned Public
Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant.
The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under
Sections 64 & 137(2) of BNS and under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.
The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the
Juvenile Justice Act 2015 before learned Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh was rejected vide order
dated 27.06.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal
was filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge,
Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 No.1,
[2025:RJ-JD:33993] (2 of 4) [CRLR-857/2025]
Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.11/2025 and the same has
been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order
dated 03.07.2025.
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 27.06.2025 and
03.07.2025 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. Counsel further submits that the present
petitioner has been detained in observation home since
16.06.2025. 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 has been
detained in observation home 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 and learned
counsel for complainant 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:33993] (3 of 4) [CRLR-857/2025]
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 27.06.2025 passed by the learned
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh as well
as order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 Hanumangarh
declining bail to the petitioner is hereby set aside.
It is ordered that the accused-petitioner V S/o H shall be
released on bail in FIR No.111/2025 Police Station Pallu, District
Hanumangarh 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 Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh; with the stipulation that on
all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall appear before the said
[2025:RJ-JD:33993] (4 of 4) [CRLR-857/2025]
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
21-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
