Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1880 (RAJ)

Jaishankar Mishra v. State of Rajasthan

2012-09-04

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this revision petition, the petitioner, who is a "juvenile in conflict with law" has challenged the order dated 31.03.2012 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.03.2012 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur in FIR No.93/2012, Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur City (South) for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 3. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur was rejected vide order dated 14.03.2012 mainly on the ground that if benefit of bail is granted to the petitioner, he may come in contact with accused persons which may adversely affect him mentally, psychologically and physically. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 14.03.2012, an appeal under Section 52 of the Act was filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and the same has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 31.03.2012 on the ground that the findings of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board were true and correct in accordance with law and in which no interference was required. 5. Dissatisfied by the impugned orders dated 31.03.2012 and 14.03.2012 passed by learned Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the gravity and seriousness of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline the bail to a juvenile. He also contended that the learned 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 there is no material on record on which the Principal Magistrate and the Sessions Judge have concluded the findings. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor defended the orders of the learned Courts below. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me, perused the provisions of the Act and the case law cited before me. 9. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor defended the orders of the learned Courts below. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me, perused the provisions of the Act and the case law cited before me. 9. It is well settled that ordinarily a "juvenile in conflict with law" must be released on bail unless the exceptional circumstances mentioned in Section 12 of the Act itself are clearly made out by evidence and the Juvenile Justice Board on perusing the material available on the record comes to a definite conclusion that in the circumstances of the case, it would not be in the interest of the juvenile to release him on bail. It is also well settled that at the time of consideration of bail the gravity and nature of the offence cannot be looked into. 10. After carefully examining the provisions of the Act, I find that in both the impugned orders no exceptional circumstances as indicated in Section 12 of the Act to decline the bail to the juvenile, are made out. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Appellate Authority 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 unfounded apprehension, the bail has been declined. In my opinion, the Act being a beneficial and social oriented legislation, needs to be given full effect by all concerned, whenever the matter relating to juvenile comes to consideration before them. In the absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 11. The net result of the above discussions is that the revision petition is allowed, the order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur as well as the order dated 31.03.2012 passed by learned Appellate Court i.e. Additional District & Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur declining bail to the petitioner are, hereby, set aside and it is directed that the petitioner-Jaishankar Mishra @ Nikki s/o Neeraj Mishra shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (father) in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing he shall produce the petitioner before the said Board or any other Court during the pendency of the enquiry in the case and that his guardian shall keep proper look after the petitioner and keep him away from the company of known or unknown criminals.Revision Petition allowed. *******