Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1348 (RAJ)

Bhanuprakash @ Banti v. State of Rajasthan

2017-05-25

P.K.LOHRA

body2017
ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. 1. Seeking bail, the revisionists, petitioners-juveniles (1) Bhanuprakash @ Banti (2) Vishal, and (3) Niranjan @ Sonu Sharma, through their fathers - natural guardians, have preferred this revision petition under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘JJ Act’) to assail impugned order dated 27th of April 2017, passed by Children Court (Addl. Sessions Judge), (Link Officer) (Sessions Judge), Churu (for short ‘learned appellate Court’) confirming order dated 24th of April 2017, passed by Principal Magistrate, juvenile Justice Board, Churu (for short ‘learned Board’). 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of case are that a complaint, against petitioners-juveniles for offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, came to be registered as FIR No. 7/2017 at Police Station Sardar Shahar, District Churu. Thereafter, the juveniles were produced before learned Board and presently they are lodged in Observation Home. Earlier, at the behest of petitioners, two bail applications moved before the learned Board were rejected vide orders dated 8th of February 2017 and 12th of April 2017 and the third bail application too was rejected by the learned Board vide its order dated 24th of April 2017 against which an appeal was preferred before learned appellate Court but did not fructify to the advantage of petitioners-juveniles and the learned appellate Court rejected the appeal vide order dated 27th of April 2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that accused petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and no specific role is assigned to them for commission of alleged offence. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that a report, solicited from Probation Officer, speaks volume about the fact that conduct of the petitioners- juveniles is normal. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that main allegation is against Guard and the approver's statements are per se not incriminating. It is urged that petitioners are in custody since January 2017 and looking to their age, who are children in conflict with law, benevolent view is desirable in the matter of grant of bail for facilitating their reformation. It is urged that petitioners are in custody since January 2017 and looking to their age, who are children in conflict with law, benevolent view is desirable in the matter of grant of bail for facilitating their reformation. Learned counsel for the petitioners-juveniles submits that natural guardians of the delinquent minors undertake to exercise complete control over the delinquents and will not bring them into association with any known criminal or will not put them in such a situation that will put the minors into physical, mental or psychological danger and the delinquents will not repeat the offence alleged against them and they would be reformed. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that both the Courts below have not examined the afflictions of petitioners-juveniles in conflict with law in right perspective and therefore, interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant, and also perused the impugned order, report of the Probation Officer and other materials available on record. 6. In the instant case, adjudication relates to the fact as to whether the bail to the delinquent juvenile in conflict with law will have to be considered on the strength of the merits of the case, or on gravity of offence or on the parameters as laid down under Section 12 of the JJ Act. Before dealing with the matter, it would be appropriate to take into account Section 12 of the JJ Act which is extracted herein-under: "12. Before dealing with the matter, it would be appropriate to take into account Section 12 of the JJ Act which is extracted herein-under: "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 (or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person) 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-in-charge 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." 7. The above law as contained under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act categorizes a situation when bail to a delinquent juvenile can be refused. In so far as the mandate of the aforesaid Section 12 of the JJ Act relating to the grant of bail to a delinquent juvenile is concerned, the only exception given for rejecting a bail stipulates to the extent that he shall not be so released if there appears 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. In view thereof, it is obvious that if the aforesaid conditions are existing and there is reasonable likelihood of minor coming into association with any known criminal or he is likely to be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, then the bail to the delinquent juvenile in conflict with law will not be allowed. The merits/gravity of the offence will not be the sole guiding factor for disposal of the bail application of the delinquent juvenile in conflict with law which is settled law. 8. It is true that the first information report has been lodged against the revisionists under Section 302, 201 I.P.C. but gravity of the offence loses significance in view of the report of the Probation Officer that the revisionists are normal and parents of the juveniles are willing to reform their children. This positively indicates that parents are ready to take custody of their sons with a will to improve upon their life. There being no supporting material giving rise to the possibility of the minor falling into company of the known criminal or there being physical or psychological danger to the safety of the minor or otherwise to secure ends of justice, it can be conveniently observed that the bail application of the minors cannot be opposed simplicitor on the ground of gravity of offence when parents/guardian of the delinquent juvenile in conflict with law are ready to do reformative act on their part for upliftment of their children. The Board has completely overlooked this particular aspect of the case, while rejecting the bail application. Even the learned appellate Court while deciding the appeal was very much influenced by the gravity of the offence and did not take into account the report of the Probation Officer and there is nothing on record which may reflect that the mandate as laid down under sub-section (1) of section 12 of the JJ Act will be violated in case the delinquent minors are released on bail. In absence of any such clear cut finding based upon sufficient supporting material that the release of the delinquent juveniles will be in violation of the conditions contained under Section 12 (1) of the JJ Act, it would not be proper to give primacy to gravity of the offence alone. In absence of any such clear cut finding based upon sufficient supporting material that the release of the delinquent juveniles will be in violation of the conditions contained under Section 12 (1) of the JJ Act, it would not be proper to give primacy to gravity of the offence alone. The pertinent point is whether the release would bring the minors into association with any known criminal or will put them into physical, psychological or moral danger or it would defeat the ends of justice. In that perspective, it was incumbent upon the learned appellate Court to have taken into consideration the aforesaid mandate as contained under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the JJ Act. Even the report of the District Probation Officer indicates reasonable possibility that in case juveniles are released on bail the ends of justice would not be defeated. 9. True it is that petitioners-juveniles are charged for offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC, but then looking to their tender age and favourable report, in my considered opinion, appellate Court as well as the Board has seriously erred in declining to exercise discretion in their favour for grant of bail more particularly in view of the fact that the basic object of JJ Act is to protect human rights of children and provide them congenial atmosphere for reformation, and in the matter of grant of bail a liberal approach is the need of hour. 10. Accordingly, I feel persuaded to exercise revisional jurisdiction in the matter to upset both the impugned orders. In the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case, the impugned orders suffer from the vice of impropriety and, therefore, merit interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 11. Resultantly, both the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside and the revision petition is allowed. As a consequence thereof, petitioners-juveniles (1) Bhanuprakash @ Banti S/o Babu Lal (2) Vishal S/o Sita Ram and (3) Niranjan @ Sonu Sharma S/o Radhey Shyam are ordered to be released on bail provided the guardians of petitioners-juveniles furnishes separately requisite bail bonds in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Churu with the stipulation that they shall make sincere endeavour to present juveniles (petitioners) before the Board on each and every date of hearing and as and when they are called.