Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1244 (RAJ)

Chandrabhan @ Shubham v. State of Rajasthan

2016-08-30

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2016
ORDER : Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), the petitioner, who is a "juvenile in conflict with law" has challenged the order dated 25.6.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kota in Criminal Appeal No.236/2016 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 2.6.2016 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kota in FIR No.148/2016 registered at Police Station Dadabari, Kota for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 302, 307 & 323 IPC. 3. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act before the Juvenile Justice Board, Kota was dismissed vide order dated 2.6.2016 mainly on the ground that if benefit of bail is granted to the petitioner he is likely to associate with any known or unknown criminal person or it may expose him morally, physically or psychologically in danger or release of petitioner would defeat the ends of justice. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 2.6.2016, an appeal under Section 101 of the Act was filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 25.6.2016 on almost same grounds as recorded by the Board with a observation that there is no illegality in the order. 5. Dissatisfied by the impugned orders, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the gravity and seriousness of the offence committed by a juvenile cannot be a ground to decline bail to him. He also contended that the Courts below without taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of the Act, in a cursory manner declined bail to the petitioner. It was submitted that there is no material on record to reach to a conclusion that if benefit of bail is granted to the petitioner it would not be in the interest of justice and there is every possibility of petitioner coming in contact with known or unknown persons of criminal nature and it may adversely affect him physically and mentally. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the orders of the Courts below contending that the petitioner has been found involved in a serious offence under Section 302 IPC. 8. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the orders of the Courts below contending that the petitioner has been found involved in a serious offence under Section 302 IPC. 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 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 circumstance 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 gravity and nature of the offence cannot be looked into. 10. After carefully examining the provisions of the Act, I find that in both the impugned orders no exceptional circumstances as indicated in Section 12 of the Act to decline bail to the juvenile, are made out. Learned Board as well as the learned Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the mandatory provisions of 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 social oriented legislation needs to be given full effect by all concerned, whenever the matter relating to juvenile comes for consideration before them. In the absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it can not 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, order dated 2.6.2016 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Kota as well as the order dated 25.6.2016 passed by the learned Appellate Court i.e. Sessions Judge, Kota declining bail to the petitioner are, hereby, set aside and it is directed that the petitioner Chandrabhan @ Shubham Son of Shri Pradeep Singh Gaur shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian Shri Pradeep Singh Gaur (Father) in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Kota with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing he shall produce the petitioner before the said Board or any other Court during pendency of the inquiry in the case and that his guardian shall keep proper look after of the petitioner and keep him away from the company of known criminals. Petition allowed.