Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1395 (RAJ)

Devendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2012-05-29

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 1.5.2012 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal preferred by the present petitioner against the order of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Board and the application for release of the present petitioner on bail has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner was charge- sheeted in F.I.R. No. 111/2010 for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 307, 384, 302 Indian Penal Code and 3/25 of the Arms Act. During the course of trial, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner claiming himself to be juvenile upon this inquiry was conducted and vide order dated 19.3.2010, it was held that the present petitioner was juvenile on the date of occurrence and, therefore, the case of the petitioner was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board. 3. The present petitioner preferred an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (for short 'the Act'), which was rejected and appeal has also been dismissed. Hence this petition. 4. The contention of the present petitioner is that looking to the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the petitioner should be released on bail. The leaned Court below has not considered the petition of the present petitioner in right perspective. The anxiety of the lower Court was that the father of the present petitioner is not having adequate control on the present petitioner has gone away as now the petitioner is major and he himself iS responsible for his deeds and conducts. Hence, he should be released on bail. At the same time, it has also been contended that looking to the provisions of Section 436-A Criminal Procedure Code, since the present petitioner has suffered more than half of the sentence, therefore, he should be released on bail and the present petitioner is in District Jail, Dholpur, which is not a legal detention according to the Act. 5. The contention of the Public Prosecutor is that the present petitioner is involved in the offence under Sections 302, 384 Indian Penal Code etc. and one other case is also pending against him, hence, looking to the criminal antecedents, he should not be released on bail. 6. 5. The contention of the Public Prosecutor is that the present petitioner is involved in the offence under Sections 302, 384 Indian Penal Code etc. and one other case is also pending against him, hence, looking to the criminal antecedents, he should not be released on bail. 6. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner has been declared juvenile after the inquiry held by the Court concerned. The charges against him are for the offences under Sections 302, 384 etc. Indian Penal Code It is also not in dispute that the gravity of offence is not a relevant consideration while considering the application under Section 12 of the Act and reliance has been placed on the judgments delivered in Sachin v. State of Rajasthan, 2010(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1387 , Manendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2010(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1429 and Santosh @ Dholiya v. State of Rajasthan, 2010(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1447 , wherein it has been held that there should be exceptional circumstances to decline the bail. 7. It is also not in dispute that the present petitioner is also involved in one other case and on this count, alone, the application of the present petitioner is liable to be disallowed. 8. The contention of the present petitioner is that he has already suffered more than half of the sentence, hence his case should be dealt with under Section 436-A Criminal Procedure Code The Act is encyclopedia for dealing the cases of juvenile and Section 12 of the Act deals with the bail of juvenile. This is the only relevant provision while dealing with the bail applications of juvenile. Hence, Section 436- A Criminal Procedure Code has no relevance as far as bail of the juvenile is concerned. The composite reading of Section 12 and Section 3 of the Act also suggests that juvenile, who has ceased to be a juvenile thereafter, the inquiry would definitely be continued deeming him as juvenile. The present petitioner is now no more juvenile but looking to the provisions of Section 3 and Section 12 of the Act, the question of bail would be considered only in the light of Section 12 of the Act and hence the contention regarding the provision of Section 436-A Criminal Procedure Code is not available to the petitioner. 9. The present petitioner is now no more juvenile but looking to the provisions of Section 3 and Section 12 of the Act, the question of bail would be considered only in the light of Section 12 of the Act and hence the contention regarding the provision of Section 436-A Criminal Procedure Code is not available to the petitioner. 9. The other contention of the present petitioner is that when the petitioner has ceased to be a juvenile, he cannot be kept in Observation Home, hence he should be released on bail and reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered in the case of Vikrain @ Bangali v. State of Rajasthan, 2005(1) RCC 336 and Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 409 , wherein, after final conviction, accused who has been ceased to be a juvenile, has been released by upholding the conviction. 10. In the present case, the present petitioner is still under inquiry and in the light of the provision under Section 16 of the Act, the person who has ceased to be a juvenile, could be kept in special home or in protective custody as ordered by the State Government. If the present petitioner is aggrieved by the place of his custody, he can move under Section 16 of the Act before the competent authority.In the light of the above, the present petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail and hence this revision petition is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******