Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 105 (RAJ)

Banwari Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-13

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against the order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.207/2014 confirming the order dated 13.11.2014 passed by the learned Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sriganganagar in relation to FIR No.564/2014, PS Suratgarh City, under Sections 379 and 411 IPC. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 13.10.2014, complainant Umesh Chitlangia presented himself before the P.S. Suratgarh City and submitted a written report alleging therein that on 02.10.2014, at about 10 o'clock, he kept his motor-cycle bearing No.RJ 13 7M 7550 in-front-of his house and when he came back at about 5 o'clock, he did not find the same and on searching he came to know that Harun Musalman and Banwari have taken away his motor-cycle. 3. On this report, FIR No.564/2014 under Section 379 IPC was registered at P.S., Suratgarh City and the petitioners were arrested and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, wherefrom they were sent to the Juvenile Home, Sriganganagar. The fathers of each of the petitioner preferred an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for releasing them on bail but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 13.11.2014. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2014, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2014 . Hence, this revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are juveniles and gravity of offence cannot be considered against the juvenile. Hence, they may be enlarged on bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition in general. 7. The report of the Probation Officer was called and perused, wherein nothing adverse was reported against the petitioners. 8. In view of fact that the revisionists are juveniles, their bail application is liable to be considered in accordance with Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Juvenile Act'), which provides:- 12. 7. The report of the Probation Officer was called and perused, wherein nothing adverse was reported against the petitioners. 8. In view of fact that the revisionists are juveniles, their bail application is liable to be considered in accordance with Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Juvenile Act'), which provides:- 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 be 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." 9. A perusal of Section 12 of the Juvenile Act reveals that a juvenile is entitled to bail notwithstanding gravity of the crime. His bail can be refused only when there are reasonable grounds for believing that 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 the ends of justice. It is also manifest that the said Section 12 of the Juvenile Act over-rides the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') and other laws for the time being in force and, therefore, in the event of any inconsistency, Section 12 of the Juvenile Act will prevail. 10. It is also manifest that the said Section 12 of the Juvenile Act over-rides the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') and other laws for the time being in force and, therefore, in the event of any inconsistency, Section 12 of the Juvenile Act will prevail. 10. Bail to the juvenile can only be refused if anyone of the grounds envisaged in Section 12 of the Juvenile Act exist. So far as the ground of gravity is concerned, it is not covered under the above provisions of the Act. If the bail application of the juvenile was to be considered under the provisions of the Code, there would have been absolutely no necessity for the implementation of the aforesaid act. The language that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, the juvenile accused shall be released. Not only this, the Parliament re-considered the entire matter and repealed the old Act of 1986 by introducing new Act No.56 of 2000, increasing the age from 16 to 18 years. This has been done keeping in view the welfare of the child so that even after committing an offence, a child may not become a hardened criminal but he may reform himself. 11. Both the courts below rejected the application of the petitioners on the ground of gravity of the offence and keeping in mind that the petitioners' future may be affected. 12. Since legislation has decided the age of juvenile, which is less than 18 years, therefore, they are entitled to invoke the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act. 13. Since word "shall" has been used in language of section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, therefore, this petition deserves to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar as well as the order dated 13.11.2014 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sriganganagar are hereby quashed.Let the revisionists Banwari Lal S/o Shri Sohan Lal and Harun S/o Shri Mohammad Sarbar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond amounting to Rs. 20,000/- by their natural guardians, father with two solvent sureties amounting to Rs. 20,000/- by their natural guardians, father with two solvent sureties amounting to Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sriganganagar with stipulation that the revisionists juvenile will be produced on each and every date of hearing before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sriganganagar or where the case is being transferred and whenever called upon to do so. Further, they, along with members of family will keep a watch over the juveniles that they may not indulge in any other criminal activity.Revision Allowed. *******