Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2804 (RAJ)

Shepraj @ Shivraj v. State of Rajasthan

2005-10-25

N.K.JAIN

body2005
Judgment Narendra Kumar Jain, J.- Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order dated 11.08.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No. 52/2005 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed against the order dated 01.08.2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur dismissing the application of the petitioner for bail under Section 12 of the Act. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur vide its order dated 01.08.2005 dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act without calling or waiting of the report of the Probation Officer. The case of the petitioner was not falling under any exceptional circumstances for not releasing the accused on bail as mentioned in Section 12 of the Act, which otherwise is mandatory in nature, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been released on bail. The Sessions Judge, Bharatpur also committed an illegality in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, therefore, his submission is that this revision petition may be allowed and the petitioner be ordered to be released on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the revision petition of the petitioner. 5. The Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur vide its order dated 01.08.2005 dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act wherein it was specifically mentioned that the report of the Probation Officer has not been received and still, he assigned the reasons for not releasing the accused petitioner on bail as release of the petitioner on bail 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. When, the report of the Probation Officer was not available, then there was no basis for mentioning all these facts by the Juvenile Justice Board in its order dated 01.08.2005. There was no basis for mentioning all these reasons for rejection of the application of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor was directed to call for the case diary and the same has been produced by him wherein report of the Probation Officer is available. There was no basis for mentioning all these reasons for rejection of the application of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor was directed to call for the case diary and the same has been produced by him wherein report of the Probation Officer is available. The Assistant Director, Social Welfare, Sawaimadhopur vide its report dated 22.09.2005 has mentioned only particulars of the incident but has not said anything as to whether release on bail of the petitioner 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. 7. In view of the report of the Probation Officer as provided by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is clear that the case of the petitioner was not falling within any of the exception as mentioned in the Section 12 of the Act for not releasing him on bail. So far as release of juvenile on bail is concerned, the provisions of Section 12 of the Act is mandatory as held by this Court in Phool Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, 1998 RCC 179. 8. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a juvenile and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is held that he is entitled to be released on bail under Section 12 of the Act as his release is not 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. 9. Consequently, the revision petition of the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 11.08.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur and order dated 01.08.2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur are set aside and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian in the sum of Rs. 9. Consequently, the revision petition of the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 11.08.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur and order dated 01.08.2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur are set aside and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-and one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur with a stipulation that he will produce the petitioner on all dates of hearing in the said Court/Board or before any other Court during the pendency of the inquiry/trial of the case and the guardian shall keep the petitioner under strict vigil and prevent him from exposing to moral danger and from the company of the criminals. 10. In view of the above observations and directions, the revision petition of the petitioner is allowed as indicated above.