Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2363 (RAJ)

Ritesh Sahu v. State of Rajasthan

2008-10-17

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Judgment Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2000 read with Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1.10.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Kota in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2008 by which he rejected the appeal of the accused petitioner for grant of bail and upheld the order dated 24.9.2008 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kota in the application arising out of FIR No. 30/2008 registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Kota for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 302 IPC and Section 4.25 Arms Act by which bail was refused to the accused petitioner. (2). Brief facts of the case are that on 20.9.2008, Subodh Paliwal lodged a report at P.S. Jawahar Nagar, Kota stating inter alia that on that day at about 8.30 P.M., Gagan had informed him on telephone that Vivek was beaten by accused Umang and Navneet, as a result of which, he had died and his dead body was lying in M.B.S. Hospital and upon this, he along-with some other persons had reached hospital where Gagan, Sukhveer Singh and Navneet were there and Gagan had informed him that at about 5.15 P.M., deceased and his friends were sitting in Gayatri Park and at that time, Umang, Navneet, Prasant, Gaurav, Viplav, Amit, Rituraj, Asish and 6-7 boys came there and started quarreling and thereafter accused Umang took out a knife and gave knife blow on the chest of deceased, as a result of which, deceased fell down and thereafter, all accused persons ran away. (3). On that report, police registered the case for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 302 IPC and Section 4/25 Arms Act and chalked out regular FIR No. 30/2008 and started investigation. (4). After investigation, the accused petitioner was arrested treating him as juvenile and presently, he has been sent to Children's Home, Kota. (5). Thereafter, the accused petitioner moved an application for bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kota. However, that application was rejected vide order dated 24.9.208. (6). (5). Thereafter, the accused petitioner moved an application for bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kota. However, that application was rejected vide order dated 24.9.208. (6). Aggrieved from the said order of the learned Magistrate dated 24.9.2008 the accused petitioner preferred an appeal before Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota, but that appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Kota, but that appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Kota vide order dated 1.10.2008 and the order of the learned Principal Magistrate dated 24.9.2008 was upheld. (7). Against the said order, this revision petition was preferred. (8). In this revision petition Mr. Ashvin Garg has pointed out and submitted a Photostat copy of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 895/2008, Rakesh vs. State of Rajasthan in which co-accused has been released on bail by this order and his prayer is very simple that the case of the said petitioner is not distinguishable from the person who has been released on bail in the aforesaid criminal petition. Hence the present petitioner should be granted the same relief. (9). Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. (10). For these reasons, I accept the petition of the petitioner provided he furnishes a personal bond through his natural guardian in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kota with the stipulation that on the subsequent date of hearing he shall appear before the said court and any other date during the pendency of enquiry and the guardian shall keep proper look after the petitioner. (11). Hence, this petition is disposed of accordingly. Stay order (12). In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application stands disposed of.