Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Adarsh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:10374) on 20 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:10374]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 5/2025
Adarsh S/o Shri Amar Singh Moyal, Aged About 15 ½ Years,
Through His Natural Guardian Father Amar Singh Moyal S/o Hari
Singh Moyal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Ward No.1, Lakhuwali,
Pilibangan, Police Station Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh (Raj)
(At Present Detained At Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Jagdish Prasad S/o Kesra Ram, R/o Ward No.1, Mandi
Pilibangan, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
20/02/2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through
his natural guardian) as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under
Sections 333, 87, 305-A and 3(5) of BNS. 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 16.12.2024. 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, District Hanumangarh and the same has
been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order
dated 20.12.2024.
[2025:RJ-JD:10374] (2 of 4) [CRLR-5/2025]
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 16.12.2024 and
20.12.2024 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has
preferred this revision petition before this Court.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that challan of the case
has already been presented and no investigation is pending
against the petitioner. Furthermore, 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 him 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 has been in juvenile observation since
12.12.2024 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 counsel for
the 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:10374] (3 of 4) [CRLR-5/2025]
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 16.12.2024 passed by learned
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh as well
as order dated 20.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge,
Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, District
Hanumangarh declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside.
It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Adarsh
S/o Shri Amar Singh Moyal, shall be released on bail in FIR
No.570/2024 registered at Police Station Pilibangan, District
Hanumangarh upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural
[2025:RJ-JD:10374] (4 of 4) [CRLR-5/2025]
guardian, in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- 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 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
30-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
