Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
S Juvenile vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28152) on 1 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:28152]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 714/2025
S Juvenile S/o Amarjeet Singh, Aged About 17 Years, R/o Ward
No.15 Surewala Tehsil Tibi District Hanumangarh Juvenile
Through Natural Guardian Father Amarjeet Singh S/o Darshan
Singh Aged 44 Years R/o Ward No 15 Surewala Tehsil Tibi,
District Hanumangarh. (Presently Detained In Observation Home
Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjeet Singh Gill
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
01/07/2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through
his natural guardian and Father Amarjeet Singh) as well as
learned Public Prosecutor.
The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under
Section 8/15 of NDPS 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 28.05.2025. 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, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.83/2025 and the same
has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned
order dated 03.06.2025.
[2025:RJ-JD:28152] (2 of 4) [CRLR-714/2025]
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 28.05.2025 and
03.06.2025 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 and challan in this case has already been
presented. Counsel further submits that the recovered contraband
is below the commercial quantity and there are no other criminal
antecedents against the present petitioner except the present one.
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 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.
The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 conveys the
intention of the Legislature to grant bail to the juvenile,
[2025:RJ-JD:28152] (3 of 4) [CRLR-714/2025]
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 28.05.2025 passed by the learned
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh as well
as order dated 03.06.2025 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 S Juvenile S/o
Amarjeet Singh shall be released on bail in FIR No.112/2025
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 court or any other court,
[2025:RJ-JD:28152] (4 of 4) [CRLR-714/2025]
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
37-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
