Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 661 (RAJ)

Banay Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2013-04-02

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN II

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(a juvenile- through his guardian father) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. This revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000') has been filed against the judgment dated 04.03.2013 passed by learned Special Judge, Dacoiety Effected Area, Bharatpur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 19/2013, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 25.02.2013 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur in FIR No. 99/2013 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur, for offence under Sections 466, 467, 471, 120B IPC, dismissing the bail application of the petitioner filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2000. 3. The allegation of offence against the petitioner is under Sections 466, 467, 471, 120B IPC for forgery etc. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2000 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur was rejected vide order dated 25.02.2013. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal under Section 52 of the Act of 2000 was filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Court and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 04.03.2013. Dissatisfied by the judgments and orders dated 04.03.2013 and 25.02.2013 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 53 of the Act of 2000 before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that impugned orders passed by the Courts below are illegal, unsustainable in the eyes of law and totally against the provisions of law. Learned Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the petitioner is a juvenile and entitled to get benefit of provisions of the Act of 2000. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 clearly provides that if the petitioner is juvenile, then he should be released on bail, but learned Courts below fully ignored the provisions of the Act of 2000. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since long time and no further detention of the petitioner is required for any purpose. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since long time and no further detention of the petitioner is required for any purpose. There is no evidence to show that if the juvenile-petitioner is released on bail, then his 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 ends of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. Learned Courts below in quite cursory manner have declined bail to the applicant-petitioner. He further contended that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are not based upon definite facts and they are based on surmises and conjectures. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the petitioner as also the judgment passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. In compliance of order dated 21.03.2013 passed by this Court, he has produced a report of Superintendent of Juvenile Justice Home, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Bharatpur in which the character and conduct of the petitioner has been found very good and as per the report, if the petitioner-juvenile is released on bail, then his release is not likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would not defeat ends of justice. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2000 and the Report No. 210 dated 30.03.2013 submitted by learned Public Prosecutor. It appears that for the protection of juvenile, this special Act has been enacted. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 indicates that if a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such juvenile shall be released on bail, with or without surety, or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution. 7. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 indicates that if a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such juvenile shall be released on bail, with or without surety, or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution. 7. The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 conveys the intention of the Legislature to grant bail to the juvenile, irrespective of nature or gravity of the offence, alleged to have been committed by him and bail can be denied only in the case where there appears 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 ends of justice. 8. In this context, I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the courts below, FIR of the case as well as the report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor. 9. Having carefully examined provisions of the Act of 2000 vis-a-vis the orders passed by the courts below, I do not find that any of the exceptional circumstances, to decline bail to a juvenile, as indicated in Section 12 of the Act of 2000, is made out. The learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the provisions envisaged under Section 12 of the Act of 2000. In my humble opinion, the Act of 2000 being a beneficiary and social reforms oriented legislation, should be given full effect by all concerned, whenever matters relating to juvenile come for consideration before them. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 25.02.2013 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur as well as judgment dated 04.03.2013 passed by learned Special Judge, Dacoiety Effected Area, Bharatpur, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside. 11. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Banay Singh Meena S/o. Surendra Singh Meena shall be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian(father), Surendra Singh Meena in the sum of Rs. 11. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Banay Singh Meena S/o. Surendra Singh Meena shall be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian(father), Surendra Singh Meena in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) along with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur; with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall appear before the said court or any other court, during pendency of the investigation/trial in the case and that his guardian shall keep proper look after of the delinquent child and secure him away from the company of known criminals.Petition Allowed. *******