Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
X vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:29135) on 7 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:29135]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 721/2025
X S/o F, Aged About 15 Years, R/o R Through His Natural
Guardian Father F, (At Present Lodged In Juvenile Penitentiary
District Banswara)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Shankar Lal S/o Veer Singh, R/o Jamrai, Kushalgadh,
District Banswara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parikshit Nayak
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
07/07/2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through
his natural guardian and Father F) as well as learned Public
Prosecutor.
The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under
Section 64 of BNS and under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012. The
bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the
Juvenile Justice Act 2015 before learned Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Banswara was rejected vide order dated
28.04.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was
filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge, Protection
of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 Banswara in Criminal
Appeal No.24/2025 and the same has been dismissed by learned
Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 30.04.2025.
[2025:RJ-JD:29135] (2 of 4) [CRLR-721/2025]
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 28.04.2025 and
30.04.2025 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 prosecutrix has been
examined before the trial court as PW-1 and there are major
contradiction, omission and improvement in her statement. 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 since 24.12.2024 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 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:29135] (3 of 4) [CRLR-721/2025]
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 28.04.2025 passed by the learned
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Banswara as well as
order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 Banswara
declining bail to the petitioner is hereby set aside.
It is ordered that the accused-petitioner X S/o F shall be
released on bail in FIR No.413/2024 Police Station Kushalgarh,
District Banswara 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, Banswara; with the stipulation that on all
[2025:RJ-JD:29135] (4 of 4) [CRLR-721/2025]
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
37-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
