Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1264 (RAJ)

Dharmendra Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

2018-05-14

DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

body2018
JUDGMENT : DEEPAK MAHESHWARI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner as also learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for State. 2. This revision petition has been preferred against the order impugned dated 8.2.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Cases, Dholpur (POSCO Court) whereby the appeal filed by the juvenile-petitioner under Sec. 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to be as "Act of 2015"), has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner submits that the juvenile-petitioner who is in conflict with law, has been detained in observation home since 5.12.2017. He was wrongly implicated in the alleged offence. This fact has been mentioned by the complainant in the affidavit sworn by him which has been placed on record. Counsel further submits that as per the family background report, conduct of the juvenile and control of the family over him is satisfactory. He, therefore, prays that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the juvenile be enlarged on bail. Counsel contends that there is no criminal antecedents of the juvenile-petitioner. The juvenile-petitioner was residing with his family and his father/mother is taking care of the juvenile-petitioner. The counsel for the juvenile-petitioner prays that the custody of the juvenile-petitioner may be handed over to his father/mother. He has further contended that the gravity and nature of the offence is not relevant while deciding the bail application as per the provisions contained in Sec. 12 of the Act of 2015. 4. The counsel for the juvenile-petitioner has further contended that the appeal in this matter has been rejected on the ground that the possibility of the juvenile-petitioner of coming into association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, cannot be ruled out on his coming into contact with other co-accused persons. The counsel also contends that this apprehension expressed by learned Appellate Court is without any basis. 5. The counsel for the juvenile-petitioner has also drawn attention of this court towards the report submitted by Probation Officer/Superintendent, Government Observations and Juvenile Home, Dholpur wherein it has been stated that no other criminal case has been registered against the juvenile-petitioner/s. Hence, it has been prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed. 6. 5. The counsel for the juvenile-petitioner has also drawn attention of this court towards the report submitted by Probation Officer/Superintendent, Government Observations and Juvenile Home, Dholpur wherein it has been stated that no other criminal case has been registered against the juvenile-petitioner/s. Hence, it has been prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer made above, but has stated that no criminal antecedent/case is pending/found against the juvenile-petitioner. From the report received from the Probation Officer/Superintendent, Government Observation and Child Home, Dholpur, it transpires that conduct and behaviour of the juvenile-petitioner is found good and his family background is also satisfactory and he is not having any criminal background. 7. From the perusal of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, it is established legal position that a delinquent juvenile ordinarily has to be released on bail irrespective of nature of offence alleged to have been committed by him unless it is shown by evidence that if he is released on bail, there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the delinquent juvenile is likely to being him into association with any known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The nature of offence and the merits of the case do not have any relevance. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material while opposing the bail and make out any of the grounds provided in the section, which may persuade the court not to release the juvenile on bail. But in this case, there is nothing on record to show that the release of the juvenile-petitioner is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose to moral physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 8. In view of whatever is stated above, the revision petition deserves to be allowed. It is directed that if the father/mother of the juvenile-petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Dholpur then the Juvenile-petitioner Dharmendra S/o. Shri Gariba be released on bail. The revision petition stands allowed.