Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1887 (RAJ)

Mahaveer v. State of Rajasthan

2013-10-29

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2013
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 18.9.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Alwar dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 9.9.2013 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar in FIR No. 88/2013, Police Station Kotkasim, District Alwar for the offence under Section 302 read-with Section 34 and 120-B IPC. 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, Alwar was rejected vide order dated 9.9.2013 mainly on the ground that if benefit of bail is granted to the petitioner, he may come in bad company which is not in the interest of justice and also that life of the petitioner may come in danger. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 9.9.2013 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 18.9.2013 on the ground that the if the petitioner is given in the custody of father, it would increase his criminal activity. 5. Dissatisfied by the impugned orders dated 9.9.2013 and 18.9.2013 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 aground 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 provision 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 the 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 socially oriented legislation, needs to be given full effect to 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 discussion is that the revision petition is allowed, the order dated 9.9.2013 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar as well as the order dated 18.9.2013 passed by learned Appellate Court i.e. Sessions Judge, Alwar declining bail to the petitioner are, hereby, set aside and it is directed that the petitioner-Mahaveer S/o Shri Ram Niwas shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (Father-Shri Ram Niwas) in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board. 20,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board. Alwar with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates 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 of the petitioner and keep him away from the company of known or unknown (Sic.) criminals.Revision Allowed. *******