Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1914 (RAJ)

Manmohan v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-05

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through his natural guardian father Peera Ram S/o Nimba Ram ) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondentState and counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections 302, 341, 323/34 IPC. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur was rejected vide order dated 14.02.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 21.02.2019. 3. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 14.02.2019 and 21.02.2019 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is below 18 years of age and he has been falsely involved in the case without any material evidence. It is further submitted that on perusal of the challan paper, it would reveal that the witnesses namely Surendra, Bhagirath, Suresh and some other witnesses, specifically named the co-accused Sahiram and Ghisaram, who inflicted injury on the head of the deceased whereas the present petitioner Manmohan has not inflicted any injury to the deceased and according to the postmortem report, the cause of death is head injury. Further there is no evidence to show that if the juvenile-petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner is in custody since long time and no further detention of the petitioner is required for any purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. 5. The petitioner is in custody since long time and no further detention of the petitioner is required for any purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 and learned counsel for the respondent No.-1 complainant defended the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the petitioner 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. 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 as well as challan papers. 9. On perusal of the challan paper, it is apparent that the witnesses namely Surendra, Bhagirath, Suresh specifically named co-accused Sahiram and Ghisaram, who inflicted injury on the head of the deceased whereas the present petitioner Manmohan has not inflicted any injury to the deceased and according to the postmortem report, the cause of death is head injury. 10. Having carefully examined provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act vis-a-vis the orders passed by the courts below and the challan papers, 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 revision petition is allowed and the order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur as well as order dated 21.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Nagaur, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside. 12. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur as well as order dated 21.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Nagaur, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside. 12. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Manmohan S/o Peera Ram shall be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian father (Peera Ram S/o Nimba Ram), in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur; 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 their guardian shall keep proper look after of the delinquent child and secure them away from the company of known criminals.