Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 738 (RAJ)

Angrej Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-05-23

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2016
ORDER : Pankaj Bhandari, J. The petitioner through his father has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh. 2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the statements of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As per the statements, the juvenile was forced to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and she was threatened that if she disclose the incident, the petitioner would killed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has defended the impugned orders his contention is that this is a case of gang rape and in such cases, the juvenile should not be enlarged on bail. 4. I have considered the rival contention and have carefully perused the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix in her statement has not implicated the accused but has rather stated that the accused was forced to have sex with her by one Buta Singh. I am of the view that the merits of the case should not be seen while deciding the application under Section 12 and the Juvenile Justice Board was clearly in error in coming to the conclusion that if the juvenile in conflict with law is granted benefit of bail, he would commit the offence again. The Appellate Court rejected the appeal on the ground that if the juvenile is released, he would come in contact with criminals. 5. To my mind, both the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court were in error in rejecting the application of the petitioner. The gravity of the offence is not to be seen while deciding the application under Section 12. Moreover, the prosecutrix has stated in her statement before the Magistrate that she was threatened that if she narrated the incident, the petitioner would be murdered. 6. Taking note of the above and also the fact that there is nothing on record to come to the conclusion that release of petitioner would defeat the end of justice or his release would bring him into association of criminals which will have adverse effect upon him, I deem it proper to set aside the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court. 7. The revision petition is allowed. 8. 7. The revision petition is allowed. 8. It is directed that the petitioner be released on bail, provided his natural guardian, father, furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- along with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh with the stipulation that he shall produce the petitioner before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board on all dates, till the enquiry or trial is completed on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the revision is decided. 2. That if the applicants changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 9. In view of the above, the present revision petition stands disposed of.