Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2099 (RAJ)

Pradhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2012-10-05

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2012
Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—By this revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Karauli whereby he has rejected the bail application of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “Juvenile Justice Act”). Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Sec. 52 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which came to be dismissed by the learned learned Sessions Judge, Karauli on 5.9.2012. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed that the aforesaid orders passed by the courts below be quashed and set aside. 2. The petitioner was involved in a criminal case alongwith his father and other near relatives, for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307 and 302 IPC. While considering the application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act filed by the petitioner, the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board held that the petitioner Pradhan Singh is involved in the murder case of the husband of the complainant alongwith other accused persons. Further, he has held that the offence alleged against the petitioner is of serious nature and accordingly possibility cannot be over-ruled with regard to his coming in the company of other known and unknown accused persons. Therefore, he had been of the view that it would not be in the interest of the juvenile petitioner to get involved in other case. 3. On filing of the appeal by the juvenile petitioner, the learned appellate court considered every aspect of the matter, including the material facts and the case law on the point and was of the view that it would not be in the safety, interest and overall welfare of the juvenile petitioner to be enlarged on bail. 3. On filing of the appeal by the juvenile petitioner, the learned appellate court considered every aspect of the matter, including the material facts and the case law on the point and was of the view that it would not be in the safety, interest and overall welfare of the juvenile petitioner to be enlarged on bail. The relevant finding of the appellate court reads as under:- ^^izLrqr ekeys ds rF;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s e`rd ds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa ls vihykFkhZ fof/k la?k"kZ esa] fd'kksj dk thou ml ij vkjksfir vijk/k esa lafyIrrk ds dkj.k vlqjf{kr gksuk laHkkfor gSA vihykFkhZ fof/k la?k"kZ esa fd'kksj dk lja{kd jkeohj dk mldk firk /keZflag Hkh vihykFkhZ fof/k la?k"kZ esa fd'kksj ds lkFk izLrqr izdj.k esa e`rd csyflag dh gR;k djus esa fyIr jgk gSA vr,o vihykFkhZ dk laj{k.k] fgr ,oa ns[kjs[k mlds fudV lEcfU/k;ksa ds ikl 'kafdr gSA izLrqr ekeysa esa vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;k; n`"VkUr tekur ds vkosnu i= ds izØe ij vihykFkhZ dks ykHk iznku ugha djrs gSA mijksä mYysf[kr rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, esjs fouez er esa fof/k la?k"kZ esa fd'kksj dks tekur dk ykHk fn;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa U;k; ds mís'; foQy gksus] lkFk gh esa Kkr vKkr vijkf/k;ksa ds lalxZ esa vihykFkhZ ds vkus dh izcy lEHkkouk gSA** 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case, other accused persons have been enlarged on bail and the main accused, namely Dharam Singh and Bhagwan Singh are still in jail. Therefore, there is no danger to the petitioner in case he is released on bail under the Juvenile Justice Act. He has also submitted that the petitioner has never been involved in any other case. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the cases of (1) Santosh @ Dholiya vs. State of Rajasthan, 2010(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1447 = 2011(1) RLW 396; (2) Amandeep Singh @ Amna vs. State of Rajasthan, 2011(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 895 and (3) Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu vs. State of U.P., 2010(2) Crimes 521 (All.). 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for being enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for being enlarged on bail. He has submitted that apart from the reasons given by both the courts below, while denying for granting bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, it is important to note that subsequently also, a First Information Report (No.35/2012) had been lodged against the petitioner on 24.02.2012 for the offence under Section 435 IPC, by none else but the widow of the deceased (in the present case) namely Smt. Keshula Devi. Therefore, he has submitted that it would not be in the interest of the juvenile petitioner nor in fulfillment of the purpose of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. The submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties have been anxiously considered and the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below have been carefully perused by this Court. The learned courts below have given cogent reasons for not granting bail to petitioner even under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Besides, a look to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act would reveal that apart from being a beneficial provision for a juvenile to be released on bail, but it also provides that such accused should not be set at liberty if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that enlarging on bail is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that it would defeat the ends of justice. The said provisions reads as under:- “12. Bail of juvenile.- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if 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. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.” Therefore, the aforesaid provisions clearly lays down that bail to a juvenile can be denied in case there appear reasonable grounds for believing that his release would not be in his own interest or it may expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would frustrate the very purpose or defeat the ends of justice. 7. So far as the case law, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it may be mentioned that in the case of Santosh @ Dholiya (supra), it had been held that the bail should be granted to a juvenile under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and it is only in exceptional circumstances that it can be denied. The order of the court below was set aside and bail was granted to the juvenile because that Court had found that there is no exceptional circumstances as indicated in Section 12 of the Act. Similarly, in the case of Amandeep Singh @ Amna (supra), the Court had observed that no exceptional circumstances as indicated in Section 12 of the Act is made out and therefore in such a situation, it was thought proper to enlarge juvenile on bail. So far as the case of Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu (supra) is concerned, the Allahabad High Court was considering a matter where the learned sessions Court had denied bail only on the ground that the nature of offence was grave and if the juvenile is released on bail he might tamper with evidence. The said ground being not in consonance with provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the High Court thought it proper to enlarge the juvenile on bail. The said ground being not in consonance with provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the High Court thought it proper to enlarge the juvenile on bail. Such is not a situation in the present case where the learned courts below have specifically observed and given cogent reasons in consonance with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 8. The learned courts below, as aforementioned, has taken into consideration the fact that as the petitioner was involved in murder case alongwith his near relatives and on account of the family members of the deceased, the life of the juvenile petitioner may be insecure. Furthermore, it has mentioned that his guardians and protectors that is to say his father Dharam Singh and other near relatives were also in jail and in such a situation, there would be no other persons to protect the interest of the petitioner or to guide and keep supervision, while on bail. 9. This Court, while considering the case of Adam & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan alongwith other revision petitions, (2009(3) WLC (Raj.) 348 = 2009(4) RLW 3335), had considered the issue at length and pondered over the relevant provisions as well as case law and held that when the release of the accused on bail would not serve the object of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act or the interest of justice then in that situation, refusal of bail by courts below is not to be interfered with. Moreover in bail matters the orders passed by the different courts cannot be taken to be as binding precedent because each matter depends upon its merits and facts and circumstances of that particular case (Mohanlal vs. State, 2005(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1320). 10. In view of above and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no legal flaw in the impugned orders, so as to call for any interference by this Court. 11. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits.