Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2238 (RAJ)

Hadmanram v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-20

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through his natural guardian) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner was rejected vide order dated 30.04.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act 2005, Bikaner and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 02.05.2019. 3. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 30.04.2019 and 02.05.2019 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner is minor and he has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that co-accused Omprakash has already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Challan of the case has already been filed and no investigation is pending against the petitioner. 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 their 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 as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2-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. They further submitted that in her statement the prosecutrix specifically deposed that all the three accused namely Omprakash, Hadmanram and Sunderlal have committed rape with her. It is further submitted that though co-accused Omprakash has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court, but an application for cancellation of his bail will be moved soon. In such circumstances, the benefit of bail may not be granted to the petitioner. 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. 9. Having carefully examined provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act vis-a-vis the orders passed by the courts below and having considered the fact that co-accused Omprakash has already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court, 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. 10. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner as well as order dated 02.05.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2005, Bikaner, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside. 11. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Hadmanram S/o Sh. Bularam, shall be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (father), 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, Bikaner; 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.