Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gau vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24670) on 21 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24670]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 499/2025
Gau S/o Jitendra Pandit, Aged About 17 Years, R/o Harijan Basti,
P.S. Ratanada, Distt. Jodhpur, Raj. Through His Natural Guardian
Father Jitendra Pandit Son Of Sh. Shiv Ram Aged About 37, R/o
Harijan Basti, P.S. Ratanada, Distt. Jodhpur, Raj.
(Lodged In Observation Home, Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Harsh Choudhary S/o Parasram Choudhary, 44K No
26/107, Ramdev Nagar Nandari Ratanada District Jodhpur
Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishit Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
21/05/2025
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 125(b), 115(2), 109(1), 342(2), 309(6) and 3(5) of BNS.
The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 before learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Jodhpur was rejected vide order dated 15.04.2025. Being
aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner
before the learned Session Judge (Children Court), Jodhpur
Metropolitan, Jodhpur and the same has been dismissed by
learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 16.04.2025.
[2025:RJ-JD:24670] (2 of 4) [CRLR-499/2025]
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 15.04.2025 and
16.04.2025 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has
preferred this revision petition before this Court.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
below 18 years of the age and he has falsely been implicated in
this case. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has not been
named in the FIR and according to the statement of injured Harsh
Choudhary, a specific averment for causing injury has been made
against co-accused Pankaj Pandit and not against the present
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 is in juvenile observation since 11.04.2025 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
[2025:RJ-JD:24670] (3 of 4) [CRLR-499/2025]
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 15.04.2025 passed by learned
Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur as well as order dated 16.04.2025
passed by learned Session Judge (Children Court), Jodhpur
Metropolitan, Jodhpur declining bail to the petitioner are hereby
set aside.
It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Gau S/o
Jitendra Pandit, shall be released on bail in FIR No.72/2025
[2025:RJ-JD:24670] (4 of 4) [CRLR-499/2025]
registered at Police Station Ratanada, District Jodhpur upon
furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian, in the sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- along with a surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur; 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
60-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
