Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 202 (RAJ)

Sachin Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2003-02-07

HARBANS LAL

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - These two bail applications under section 439 Cr.PC. have been filed by the petitioners Sachin Meena and Imam Hasan which arise out of same FIR No. 335/00 P.S. Shivaji Park, Alwar for the offences u/Ss. 147, 148, 364, 302 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. So they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. As per the prosecution case on 16.11.2000 the petitioners Sachin Meena and Imam Hasan and his companions armed with swords, daggers and hockey sticks came to the house of complainant Ram Kishan and forcibly took away his son Dharamveer with the intention of ordering him. Dharamveer tried to save himself by rushing into a neighbouring house but they all followed him there and pulled him out from there and mercilessly and barbarously assaulted on him causing him severe injuries which resulted in his death. After investigation a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners along with others. 3. The main and only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they were below 18 years of age on the date of alleged occurrence i.e. 16.11.2000. So they may be enlarged on bail in view of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to in short as the Act). The provisions of which Act would be applicable to their case in view of the Division Bench decision in the case of Bajrang Lal v. State reported in 2002(3) RCC 1616 wherein it has been held that the provisions of the New Act would apply to the pending cases. 4. Learned PR has submitted that both the petitioners were more than 16 years of age on the date of occurrence and the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 which was in force at that time, would apply to their case and not the provisions of the Act. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have also perused the record as well as the cited authority. 6. It is not in dispute that the Act has come into force w.e.f. 1.4.2001 and the occurrence took place on 16.11.2000 when the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was inforce. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have also perused the record as well as the cited authority. 6. It is not in dispute that the Act has come into force w.e.f. 1.4.2001 and the occurrence took place on 16.11.2000 when the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was inforce. It is also not in dispute that both the petitioners are less than 18 years of age on the date of occurrence . As per Section 2(k) of the Act a juvenile or child means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age. Sections 12 of the Act provides that when any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested o detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to being him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that this release would defeat the ends of justice. Section 20 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any Court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that Court as if this Act had not been passed and if the Court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence. The language of this provision is para-materia with the language of Section 26 of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970, which has been interpreted in the afore-mentioned authority of Bajrang Lal and in view of the interpretation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court, the provisions of the Act shall be applicable to the pending cases. The language of this provision is para-materia with the language of Section 26 of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970, which has been interpreted in the afore-mentioned authority of Bajrang Lal and in view of the interpretation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court, the provisions of the Act shall be applicable to the pending cases. This apart when as per Section 20 of the Act the punishment cannot be inflicted on a juvenile even after his trial under the old Act, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of bail available to them under the Act because it is a beneficial legislation for the benefit of children. Section 6 (2) of the Act provides that the powers conferred on the Board by or under this Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the Court of Sessions when the proceedings come before them in appeal, revision or otherwise. So this court is empowered to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioners. Thus, in view of the authoritative and binding decision of an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the afore- mentioned case the petitioners who are being under 18 years of age, apparently juvenile are entitled to be released on bail as per the provisions of Section 12 of the Act because none of the conditions mentioned therein for refusing bail appear to have been made out from the record against them. 7. In the result, these bail applications are allowed and it is directed that the accused applicants Sachin Meena s/o Sriram Meena and Imam Hasan s/o Sammi Alam shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by their guardian in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- together with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance before that court on e^eh and every date of hearing until conclusion of the trial. *******