Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1427 (RAJ)

Bharat v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-09

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant (juvenile- through his natural guardian Father Munni Lal Son Of Shri Chaila Ram) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. The allegation against the appellant is of offence under Sections 302, 201, 397/34 IPC. The bail application filed by the appellant under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 before the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases (Children Court), Jodhpur was rejected vide order dated 06.03.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence against the present appellant except recovery of one rope, mobile and pant. According to counsel for the appellant, it does not connect the appellant with the alleged crime. The main allegation of inflicting injury to the deceased was against accused-Bharat Regar S/o Ghewar Ram. 4. It is also argued that there is no evidence to show that if the juvenile-appellant is released on bail, then his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is argued that learned Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the appellant is juvenile 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 appellant is in custody since long time and no further detention of the appellant is required for any purpose. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge in declining the bail to the appellant. 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. 7. A report has been received from the Probationer Officer wherein the conduct of the petitioner is said to be good and no other criminal case is pending against him. Moreover, challan has already been filed. No investigation is pending. 7. A report has been received from the Probationer Officer wherein the conduct of the petitioner is said to be good and no other criminal case is pending against him. Moreover, challan has already been filed. No investigation is pending. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. 8. 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. 9. In this context, I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the courts below. 10. Having carefully examined provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act vis-a-vis the orders passed by the courts below, I do not find that any of the exceptional circumstances, to decline bail to a juvenile, as indicated in Section 12 of the Act of 2015, is made out. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases (Children Court), Jodhpur Metro declining bail to the appellant is hereby set aside. 12. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-appellant Bharat shall be released on bail in FIR No. 96/2018, P.S. Karwad, Jodhpur upon furnishing personal bond by his natural guardian (Father Munni Lal S/o Chaila Ram), in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- along with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge POCSO Act Cases (Children Court), Jodhpur Metro with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall appear before the said court or any other court, during pendency of the investigation/trial in the case and that his guardian shall keep proper look after of the delinquent child and secure him away from the company of known criminals.