Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1214 (RAJ)

Kishan Lal Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

2019-04-24

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners namely; Kishan Lal and Mahendra Kumar (juveniles-through their natural guardians fathers Mohan Lal and Goruram) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. The allegation against the petitioners is of offences under Sections 376D, 363, 366A of the Indian Penal Code and section 5/6 of the POSCO Act. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sikar (Rajasthan) was rejected vide order dated 27.07.2018. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioners before the learned Juvenile Court/Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Sikar and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 18.08.2018. 3. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 27.07.2018 and 18.08.2018 passed by the Courts below, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded before the learned trial court on 28.03.2019. In the statement so recorded, the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Both the petitioners are below 18 years of age and they have been falsely involved in the case without any material evidence. Further there is no evidence to show that if the juveniles-petitioners are released on bail, then their release is likely to bring them into association with any known criminal, or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that their release would defeat the ends of justice. It is argued that learned Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the petitioners are juveniles and entitled to get benefit of provisions of the Act of 2015. Section 12 of the Act of 2015 clearly provides that if the accused is juvenile, then he should be released on bail, but learned Courts below fully ignored the provisions of the Act of 2015. The petitioners are in custody from 20.04.2018 and no further detention of the petitioners is required for any purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. Learned Courts below in quite cursory manner have declined bail to the applicants-petitioners. 5. The petitioners are in custody from 20.04.2018 and no further detention of the petitioners is required for any purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. Learned Courts below in quite cursory manner have declined bail to the applicants-petitioners. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the petitioners as also the judgment passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2015. It appears that for the protection of juvenile, this special Act has been enacted. Section 12 of the Act of 2015 indicates that if a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such juvenile shall 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. 7. The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 conveys the intention of the Legislature to grant bail to the juvenile, irrespective of nature or gravity of the offence, alleged to have been committed by him and bail can be denied only in the case where 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 ends of justice. 8. In this context, I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the courts below. 9. Having carefully examined provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act vis-a vis the orders passed by the courts below as also the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the learned trial court on 28.03.2019, I do not fine that any of the exceptional circumstances, to decline bail to the juveniles, as indicated in Section 12 of the Act of 2015, are made out. 10. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 27.07.2018 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sikar as well as order dated 18.08.2018 passed by learned Juvenile Court/Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Sikar, declining bail to the petitioners are hereby set aside. 11. It is ordered that the juveniles accused-petitioners namely; Kishan lal S/o Shri Mohan Lal and Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Goruram shall be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond by their natural guardians (fathers), in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each along with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sikar; with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, they shall appear before the said court or any other court, during pendency of the investigation/trial in the case and that their guardian shall keep proper look after of the delinquent child and secure them away from the company of known criminals.