Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Juvenile M vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28473) on 2 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:28473]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 689/2025
Juvenile M S/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About 17 Years, Resident Of
Gangapura, Tehsil Kolayat District Bikaner Through Natural
Guardian Mother Mangi Devi W/o Ram Lal, Resident Of
Gangapura, Tehsil Kolayat District Bikaner. (At Present Lodged In
Observation Home, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Birbal Ram Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
02/07/2025
An application (Inward No.01/25) for preponment of the date
has been filed by the counsel for the petitioner.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
hereby allowed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through
his natural guardian mother Mangi Devi) as well as learned Public
Prosecutor on the revision petition.
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 Act of 2015 before Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner was rejected vide order
dated 04.06.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal
was filed by the petitioner before the learned Children Court
[2025:RJ-JD:28473] (2 of 4) [CRLR-689/2025]
(Sessions Judge), Bikaner and the same has been dismissed by
learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 06.06.2025.
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 04.06.2025 and
06.06.2025 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has
preferred this revision petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovered
contraband is below commercial quantity and no other criminal
antecedent against the present petitioner and the petitioner has
been in custody since long and trial of the case will take sufficient
long time. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
submitted that petitioner was below 18 years of age on the date of
incident occurred 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 has been 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
[2025:RJ-JD:28473] (3 of 4) [CRLR-689/2025]
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,
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 04.06.2025 passed by the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner as well as order dated
06.06.2025 passed by learned Children Court (Sessions Judge),
Bikaner declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside.
[2025:RJ-JD:28473] (4 of 4) [CRLR-689/2025]
It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner "M" S/o Shri
Ram Lal, shall be released on bail in FIR No.90/2025 Police Station
Gajner, District Bikaner upon furnishing a personal bond by his
natural guardian (mother Mangi Devi W/o Ram Lal), 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,
Bikaner; 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 keep proper look after of the delinquent child and
secure them away from the company of known criminals.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
115-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
