Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1550 (RAJ)

Varish @ Bhoorya v. State of Rajasthan

2014-09-19

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - By this common order, SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 1002/2014 and SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 1003/2014 preferred by same petitioner Varish @ Bhoorya son of Amin shall be decided together. 2. Petitioner has been named as accused in FIR No. 300/2014 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur for offence under Section 395 IPC and FIR No. 312/2014 registered at the same police station for the same offence under Section 395 IPC. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a delinquent juvenile in conflict with law. 4. It is contended that in both the FIRs, petitioner has not been named as an accused and there is no evidence with the prosecution to prove identity of accused petitioner. Furthermore, petitioner has been named as accused in two FIR's registered in quick succession. 5. Be that as it may, Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate assisting Amin, father of the petitioner, de hors merits of the case, has submitted that as per Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short `the Act of 2000) it is incumbent for the court to grant bail to delinquent juvenile in conflict with law unless the court returns a finding that there appear reasonable grounds for believing that in case the delinquent juvenile in conflict with law is released on bail it will 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. 6. Shri Sharma has submitted that except using the golden words specified in the section, there has been no material to arrive at finding returned in the impugned order that if the petitioner is released on bail, it will 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. It is further contended that gravity of offence is not ground for the court to deny bail to the delinquent juvenile. 7. Reliance has been placed upon Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, {2007 (1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 254} wherein it was held as under:- "3. It is further contended that gravity of offence is not ground for the court to deny bail to the delinquent juvenile. 7. Reliance has been placed upon Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, {2007 (1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 254} wherein it was held as under:- "3. Under Section 12(1) of the Act when any juvenile accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such persons shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 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. The language of Section 12 of the Act using the word `shall', is mandatory and it provides non-obstante clause by using the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) ,or in any other law for the time being in force", which 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 the bail can be denied only in the case where 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. 4. In the instant case, there is a report of Probation Officer, Jodhpur wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has not been found to have a tendency to commit offence nor he is known to have associated with bad persons. It has also been mentioned that during custody his conduct has been good and it is expected from him that he will be a good citizen. It has also been said that it is in the interest of the juvenile to release him on bail." 8. Section 13 of the Act of 2000 is not an idle formality. It casts a solemn duty upon the Court to take active steps for reformation of the delinquent juvenile. It has also been said that it is in the interest of the juvenile to release him on bail." 8. Section 13 of the Act of 2000 is not an idle formality. It casts a solemn duty upon the Court to take active steps for reformation of the delinquent juvenile. It will be apposite to reproduce Section 13 of the Act of 2000 which is as under:- "13. Information to parent, guardian or probation officer. - Where a juvenile is arrested, the officer in charge of the police station or the special juvenile police unit to which the juvenile is brought shall, as soon as may be after the arrest, inform- (a) the parent or guardian of the juvenile, if he can be found of such arrest and direct him to be present at the Board before which the juvenile will appear; and (b) the probation officer of such arrest to enable him to obtain information regarding the antecedents and family background of the juvenile and other material circumstances likely to be of assistance to the Board for making the enquiry." 9. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 makes provisions of bail mandatory, as the legislature has been of the considered opinion that young impressionable mind should not go astray in the company of hardened criminals or brought up in atmosphere which is in-congenial. 10. Grant of bail to delinquent juvenile is for the purpose that while staying with the family under the supervision of the natural guardian, child can be reared to become part of the social main stream. Therefore, Section 12 of the Act of 2000, prescribes three conditions for denial of the bail which have been enumerated herein above. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 also envisages a situation where Court can place the delinquent juvenile in conflict with law under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person. 11. Section 13 of the Act of 2000 specifies a duty upon the Probation Officer and enumerates the factors which ought to be considered by the Probation Officer. 12. After going through the impugned orders, this Court is of the view that the Juvenile Justice Board, Sawai Madhopur ought to have called for the report of the Probation Officer before considering bail application of the petitioner. 13. 12. After going through the impugned orders, this Court is of the view that the Juvenile Justice Board, Sawai Madhopur ought to have called for the report of the Probation Officer before considering bail application of the petitioner. 13. Consequently, the order dated 4th August, 2014 passed by the Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter called as "the Board") and the order dated 11th August, 2014 passed by the lower appellate Court are set aside. Juvenile Justice Board, Sawai Madhopur is directed to instruct Probation Officer to seek antecedents of the petitioner, furnish report regarding his family background by keeping the petitioner while in custody under observation and thereafter the Board shall consider report sent by the. Probation Officer to pass appropriate orders. The appropriate orders shall be passed within fifteen days after the receipt of the report of the Probation Officer. The Board shall decide bail application of the petitioner afresh expeditiously considering the mandate of Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Act of 2000 and the law as interpreted by the courts of law in various judgments.Revision petition disposed of. *******