Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 246 (RAJ)

Praveen v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-28

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No.20/2014 confirming the order dated 18.11.2014 passed by the learned Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajsamand in relation to FIR No.207/2014, PS Rajnagar, under Sections 302 IPC. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 23.08.2014, complainant Udai Singh presented himself before the SHO, PS Rajnagar and submitted a report alleging therein that his son Virendra Singh went to Ramdevra on 22.08.2014 at about 3.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when he did not return he went in his search. On 23.08.2014, dead body of his son was seen lying in the field of one Sajjan Singh. 3. On this report, FIR No.207/2014 under Section 302 IPC was registered at P.S., Rajnagar City and after completion of investigation the petitioner was detained and charge-sheet was filed against him before the Juvenile Justice Board and against one Surendra Singh. The father of the petitioner preferred an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for releasing him on bail but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2014. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal but the same has also been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand vide order dated 16.12.2014 . Hence, this revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a juvenile and gravity of offence cannot be considered against the juvenile. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in Shakti Singh v. State of Rajasthan [2014(1) RLW (Raj.) 276. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition in general. 7. In the matter of Shakti Singh (supra), a case was registered under Sections 302, 458, 147, 148, 149, 323, 326 and 307 IPC. His bail application was dismissed on the ground of gravity of offence and that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or may cause danger to his life. 7. In the matter of Shakti Singh (supra), a case was registered under Sections 302, 458, 147, 148, 149, 323, 326 and 307 IPC. His bail application was dismissed on the ground of gravity of offence and that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or may cause danger to his life. This court, while relying upon the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has held that bail to the juvenile can only be refused if anyone of the grounds envisaged in Section 12 of the Act exists and so far as gravity is concerne, it is not covered under Section 12 of the Act. It was also observed that the Parliament reconsidered the entire matter and repealed the old Act of 1986 by introducing new Act No.56 of 2000, raising the age from 16 to 18 years and this was 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. 8. So far as the ground of dismissal of bail application in the aforesaid case that his release may bring the juvenile into association with known criminal is concerned, this court, while considering the definition of the word "association" held that the single instance of a child delinquent joining the company of some known criminal or criminals would not be sufficient to satisfy the definition of the word "association" used in Section 12 of the Act and if his past conduct has been of such a nature, which indicates his continuous association with known criminal or criminals, then there would be justification for inferring that there would be likelihood that his release may bring him in association with known criminals. 9. Considering the above in the above cited case, this court, allowed the revision petition and released the juvenile on bail. 10. In the case in hand, the report of the Probation Officer was called and perused, wherein nothing adverse was reported against the petitioners nor it was reported that his past conduct was of such a nature which could indicate his continuous association with known criminal or criminals. 11. 10. In the case in hand, the report of the Probation Officer was called and perused, wherein nothing adverse was reported against the petitioners nor it was reported that his past conduct was of such a nature which could indicate his continuous association with known criminal or criminals. 11. Further, 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. 12. Both the courts below rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of gravity of the offence and keeping in mind that the petitioner's' future may be affected. 13. Since legislation has decided the age of juvenile, which is less than 18 years, therefore, he is entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act.Since word "shall" has been used in the 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 16.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand as well as the order dated 18.11.2014 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajsamand are hereby quashed. 15. Let the revisionist Praveen S/o Shri Tarachand Sen be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond amounting to Rs. 40,000/- by his natural guardian, father with two solvent sureties amounting to Rs. 20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Rajsamand with stipulation that the revisionist juvenile will be produced on each and every date of hearing before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Rajsamand or where the case is being transferred and whenever called upon to do so. Further, he, along with members of family will keep a watch over the juvenile that he may not indulge in any other criminal activity.Revision allowed. *******