Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1843 (RAJ)

Bintu Ram @ Mintu v. State of Rajasthan

2018-09-05

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This criminal revision petition under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act of 2015' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 12.06.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh (for short 'the appellate court' hereinafter), whereby the appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the juvenile through his natural guardian against the order dated 05.06.2018 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh (for short' the trial court' hereinafter) on an application under section 12 of the Act of 2015, whereby the prayer for releasing the juvenile on bail was dismissed by the trial court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as a matter of fact earlier the father of the prosecutrix lodged a complaint with the police on 11.03.2018 alleging that the petitioner committed rape upon his minor daughter but later on, on 14.03.2018, the parties had entered into compromise, wherein the father of the prosecutrix specifically gave in writing to the police that on account of compromise arrived at between the parties, he does not want to press the allegations levelled in the complaint, filed by him, however, after two months, FIR No. 73/2018 of Police Station Gogamdi, District Hanumangarh has been lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, wherein he has not mentioned the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as a matter of fact the main dispute is between the father of the petitioner and the father of the prosecutrix in respect of some money transaction and when the father of the petitioner failed to pay amount of Rs. 1.5 lakh to the father of the prosecutrix, the false FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the report of the SHO, Police Station Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh dated 10.07.2018, submitted before this Court. 4. Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 reads as under: "12. 1.5 lakh to the father of the prosecutrix, the false FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the report of the SHO, Police Station Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh dated 10.07.2018, submitted before this Court. 4. Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 reads as under: "12. (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or 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 person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision" 5. From perusal of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, it is clear 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 appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the delinquent juvenile 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. 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 Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, which may persuade the Court not to release the juvenile on bail. 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 Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, 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 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. 6. It is also noticed that in the report dated 10.07.2018, the SHO, Police Station Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh has mentioned that no other case is pending against the juvenile. 7. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.06.2018 and 05.06.2018 are set aside and it is directed that petitioner - Bintu Ram @ Mintu, S/o Sunder Pal be released on bail provided his natural guardian-father -Sunder Lal S/o Devkaran furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall produce the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh or any other Court till the enquiry or trial is concluded. 8. The report of the SHO, Police Station Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh dated 10.07.2018, be taken on record.