Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2079 (RAJ)

Raju @ Navneet v. State of Rajasthan

2010-12-15

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - By this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.12.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur , dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Udaipur in FIR No. 86/2010 under Section 12 of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, registered at Police Station,Mahila Thana, Udaipur . 2. The offence against the petitioner is of sexual violence (rape) and also atrocities towards a minor girl of 8 years of age. There is a positive evidence of prosecutrix against the appellant about the commission of rape, which is a heinous sexual crime against a minor girl. 3. The bail application filed by the petitioner under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Board, Udaipur, was rejected vide order dated 19.11.2010. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 19.11.2010, an appeal under section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children ) Act, 2000 was filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 01.12.2010. 4. Dissatisfied by the orders dated 01.12.2010. and 19.11.2010 passed by the courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to juvenile. He contended that the courts below without taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of the Act, in a cursory manner declined bail to the petitioner. He further contended that the orders of the courts below are not based on definite facts and they are based on surmises and conjectures. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the order of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and also perused the provisions of the Act. 7. It appears that for protection of juveniles, Special Act has been enacted. Section 12 of the Act indicates 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. 8. Section 12 of the Act indicates 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. 8. With regard to gravity and nature of the offence is concerned, this court in the case of 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 or 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 the 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 concerned, whenever the matter relating to juvenile comes to consideration before them. 11. In my opinion, the Act being a beneficiary and social oriented legislation, should be given full effect by all concerned, whenever the matter relating to juvenile comes to 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, Udaipur as well as the order passed by the learned appellate court, i.e. Sessions Judge, Udaipur declining bail to the accused-petitioner are hereby set aside. It is directed that the accused-petitioner Raju @ Navneet s/o Kamal Kishore Brahmin shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (father) in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and a surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Udaipur 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. *******