Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1424 (RAJ)

Mahebdra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2010-08-10

S.P.PATHAK

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as, 'the Act') against the order dated 4th March, 2010 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dholpur in Criminal Case No.13/2010 whereby the application for grant of bail moved under section 12 of the Act on behalf of the petitioner to release him on bail in FIR No.2/2010 registered at police station Rajakhera District Dholpur has been dismissed and the appeal no.24/2010 preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. 2. Necessary facts, for the disposal of the present petition, are that on 3rd January, 2010 FIR No.2/2010 was registered at police station Rajakhera District Dholpur for the offence under section 304-B IPC. After conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dholpur on 27.2.2010 for the aforesaid offence committed by the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested and is confined to juvenile home. An application was moved under section 12 of the Act before the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dholpur for grant of bail under section 12 of the Act. The learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board after hearing both sides rejected the application for the reason that the offence was under section 304B IPC, therefore, looking to the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner was not required to be given benefit of bail under section 12 of the Act and rejected the application on 4.3.2010. The appeal preferred against the said order has also been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur on 8.3.2010. Hence, the present revision has been filed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned public prosecutor for the State. 4. It has been the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material available on record to justify declining bail to the petitioner who was juvenile at the time of commission of the offence. It is also contended that before bail to a juvenile is declined, it should fulfill the requirement of section 12 of the Act. It is also contended that before bail to a juvenile is declined, it should fulfill the requirement of section 12 of the Act. It is also contended that merely by making a mention in the impugned order that the petitioner is likely to come in contact with known criminals is not enough unless there is some material available on record to justify the same. It is further contended that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline the bail. It is further contended that the courts below without taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of the Act, in a cursory manner declined bail to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned public prosecutor has contended that it is not a case where the petitioner should be given indulgence of bail and the learned courts below have rightly declined bail to the petitioner. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and have also perused the provisions of the Act. 7. It appears that for protection of a juvenile, special Act has been enacted. Section 12 of the Act would indicate that if a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution. It further appears from the perusal of the above section that if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring the accused juvenile in the company of known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice, then only bail to a juvenile can be declined. There are several other provisions available in the Act and a perusal of which would indicate that what orders are liable to be passed against a juvenile during the course of trial and juvenile's trial is to be separated from other accused persons. A juvenile cannot be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. There is a special procedure for inquiry, appeals, revision etc. in relation to the juvenile. 8. A juvenile cannot be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. There is a special procedure for inquiry, appeals, revision etc. in relation to the juvenile. 8. In regard to the gravity and nature of the offence is concerned, this court in the case Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2007(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 254 , in para 3 has observed that 'the language of section 12 of the Act using the word 'shall', is mandatory and it provides non-obstante clause by using the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force", which 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 the bail can be denied only in the case where there appear 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 the ends of justice. 9. In view of the provisions contained in the Act, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether the bail was rightly declined to the accused-petitioner under section 12 of the Act and the appeal preferred against the order declining bail has rightly been rejected. 10. After carefully examining the provisions of the Act, I do not find that in both the impugned orders no exceptional circumstance as indicated in section 12 of the Act to decline bail to the juvenile is made out. The learned Magistrate as well as learned appellate court have not properly appreciated the mandatory provisions of section 12 of the Act and other provisions in relation to the juvenile and merely on the basis of apprehension the bail has been declined. In my opinion, the Act being a beneficiary and social oriented legislation should be given full effect by all concern whenever the matter relating to juvenile comes for consideration before them. 11. The net result of the above discussion is that the revision petition is allowed, the order passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board as well as the order passed by the learned appellate court i.e. Addl. Sessions Judge, Dholpur declining bail to the accused-petitioner are here-by set aside. 11. The net result of the above discussion is that the revision petition is allowed, the order passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board as well as the order passed by the learned appellate court i.e. Addl. Sessions Judge, Dholpur declining bail to the accused-petitioner are here-by set aside. It is directed that the accused-petitioner Manendra Singh son of Brahmchari shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (mother) in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dholpur with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing he shall appear before the said Court or any other Court during pendency of inquiry in the case and that the guardian shall keep proper look after of the delinquent child and keep him away from the company of known criminals.Revision allowed. *******