Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
S vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25305) on 23 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:25305]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1078/2024
S S/o Jagdish, Aged About 16 Years, Juvenile Conflict With Law-
R/o Rotu, At Present Residence Prem Colony, Back Side Of Hawai
Patti, Nagaur District Nagaur Through Natural Guardian Maternal
Grandfather Taruram S/o Nimbarm R/o Dhanani, Tehsil Jayal,
District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary for
complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
23/05/2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through
his natural guardian) as well as learned AAG.
The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under
Sections 341 and 302/34 of BNS. The bail application filed by the
petitioner under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
before learned Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur was rejected vide
order dated 19.07.2024. Being aggrieved by the said order, an
appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Session
Judge, Merta and the same has been dismissed by learned
Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 02.08.2024.
[2025:RJ-JD:25305] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1078/2024]
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 19.07.2024 and
02.08.2024 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has
preferred this revision petition before this Court.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
below 18 years of the age at the time of incident and he has
falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel further submits that
the present petitioner has not been named in the FIR.
Furthermore, in the statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C., the complainant Bhagwana Ram and witness Ram Kishor
did not mention the name of present petitioner. Additionally, Smt.
Kamla did mention the name of petitioner in her statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, her statement was
recorded on 13.05.2024, whereas, the incident occurred on
30.03.2024. From the perusal of injury report, it is revealed that
the deceased sustained injuries from a sharp-edged weapon,
whereas, a 'lathi' (a blunt force weapon) was recovered from the
present petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the challan of the
case has already been presented and there is no ongoing
investigation 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
[2025:RJ-JD:25305] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1078/2024]
on bail, but learned Courts below fully ignored the provisions of
the Act of 2015. The petitioner is in juvenile observation 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 AAG and counsel for the
complainant vehemently opposed the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that Smt. Kamla did
mention the name of the present petitioner in her statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned AAG 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.
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:25305] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1078/2024]
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 19.07.2024 passed by learned
Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur as well as order dated 02.08.2024
passed by learned Session Judge, Merta declining bail to the
petitioner are hereby set aside.
It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner S S/o
Jagdish, shall be released on bail in FIR No.69/2024 registered at
Police Station Sadar, District Nagaur 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, Nagaur; 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
15-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
