Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 845 (RAJ)

Ashok v. State of Rajasthan

2011-04-29

SANGEET LODHA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Nagaur in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein, a juvenile, against the order dated 14.3.2011 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short "the Act"), stands dismissed. 2. The brief facts in nutshell are that an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner, admittedly a juvenile, for commission of offences under Sections 323, 307 of I.P.C. at Police Station, Kotwali, Nagaur and the investigation commenced. It is alleged that the petitioner caused grievous injury to one Shri Ramakishan by knife. 3. The petitioner through his natural guardian (father) Nenaram preferred an application under Section 12 of the Act before the Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur inter alia stating that as per the injury report, no case of offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. It was submitted that the allegations at the most constitute the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. 4. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor stating that the victim is admitted to the hospital and fighting for life and therefore, the petitioner herein should not be extended benefit of bail. 5. The application was rejected by the Board observing that the possibility of the petitioner coming in contact of known criminals cannot be ruled out. 6. For the parity of the reasons, the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 52 of the Act has also been rejected by the appellate Court. Hence, this revision petition. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders impugned passed by the Courts below are ex facie contrary to law. Learned counsel submitted that bypassing the impugned order, the mandate of provisions of Section 12 has altogether been ignored by the Courts below. It is submitted that a juvenile in conflict with law deserves to be ordinarily enlarged on bail irrespective of the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed. Learned counsel submitted that bypassing the impugned order, the mandate of provisions of Section 12 has altogether been ignored by the Courts below. It is submitted that a juvenile in conflict with law deserves to be ordinarily enlarged on bail irrespective of the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed. Learned counsel submitted that while passing the orders impugned, none of the relevant aspects enumerated in Section 12 of the Act have even been considered by the Courts below and therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside and the application preferred under Section 12 of the Act by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the matter of Bhagwant @ Bhagwan Arora v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Cri. Revision Petition No. 82 of 2010, decided on 16.12.2010 , whereby co-accused in the matter Bhagwant has been released on bail. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order passed by the Court below stating that looking to the gravity of the offence, the petitioner herein is not entitled to be released on bail. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the order impugned. 10. In Bhagwant's case (supra), this Court while dealing with the identical questions observed that : "8. It is to be noticed that the Act has been brought into force for inter alia providing a juvenile justice system for juveniles in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by adopting a child friendly approach in adjudication and disposal of the matters in the best interest of the children and J or their rehabilitation keeping in view the development needs of the children. Indisputably, the Act applies to all cases involving detention or criminal prosecution of juveniles under any law and therefore, the gravity of offence by itself cannot be a ground for denial of protection provided for under the Act to the juvenile. 9. Under the scheme of the Act, the juvenile justice Board is expected to take a decision in any matter brought before it relating to juvenile in conflict with law keeping in view overall interest of the juvenile. 9. Under the scheme of the Act, the juvenile justice Board is expected to take a decision in any matter brought before it relating to juvenile in conflict with law keeping in view overall interest of the juvenile. The bail to juvenile under the provisions of Section 12 is an exception carved out to the general law governing the grant of bail and therefore, this being a beneficial provision enacted for the benefit of the juvenile and to protect his interest needs to be construed in the manner it subserves the objects sought to be achieved. 10. A bare perusal of Section 12 reveals that a juvenile shall not be released on bail if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psycological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Of course, in a given case, if the Court arrives at a conclusion that it will be in the interest of juvenile that he is placed under the supervision of Probation Officer or under care of any institution or fit person, it may instead of enlarging him on bail, may pass appropriate order in this regard." 11. Having gone through the orders impugned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Courts below have not considered the bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner in conformity with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act inasmuch as, the relevant aspects of the matter enumerated above have simply not been taken note of by the Courts below and the application seeking bail has been rejected by merely recording the ipse dixit that on being enlarged on bail, the possibility of the petitioner coming into contact of known criminals, cannot be ruled out. There is no material on record to suggest that if the petitioner is released on bail, it will bring him into association with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release will defeat the ends of justice. Thus, no exceptional circumstances specified under Section 12 of the Act exists in the instant case, therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner, a juvenile in conflict with law, deserves to be enlarged on bail. 12. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. Thus, no exceptional circumstances specified under Section 12 of the Act exists in the instant case, therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner, a juvenile in conflict with law, deserves to be enlarged on bail. 12. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 18.3.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur and the order dated 14.3.2011 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur are quashed and set aside. It is directed that the petitioner Ashok, a juvenile in conflict with law shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (father) in sum of Rs. 30,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall appear before the Board or any Court during pendency of the inquiry in the case and that the guardian shall keep proper look after of the petitioner, a juvenile in conflict with law and keep him away from company of known criminals.Revision allowed. *******