Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2480 (RAJ)

Indraj v. State of Rajasthan

2019-09-16

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile-through his natural guardian father Bhadar Ram) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections 377, 504, 427 IPC and Section 5(D), 6 of POCSO Act. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh was rejected vide order dated 09.04.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge, Child Court, Hanumangarh and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 12.04.2019. 3. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 09.04.2019 and 12.04.2019 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that petitioner is below 18 years of age and he has been falsely involved in the case without any material evidence. 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. 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. Counsel has placed reliance on order passed by this Court in the case of Anil Nayak Through his Guardian father Pappulal Vs. State [2018 (4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1955] and Jagdish Bishnoi (Minor) through his natural guardian father Vs. State & Anr. [2018 (4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1770]. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor 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 and submits that the victim is a minor aged about 6 years and there are serious allegations of committing unnatural sexual activities against the petitioner. Hence, looking to the gravity of the offence, the bail should not be granted to the petitioner. 6. Hence, looking to the gravity of the offence, the bail should 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 and carefully gone through the challan papers. 7. The serious allegations of committing unnatural sexual activities with the victim who is a minor aged about 6 years were levelled against the petitioner. The police recorded the statements of so many witnesses including the statement of minor victim Ramandeep. The witnesses specifically mentioned in their statements that the accused-petitioner has committed wrong act with Ramandeep. 8. The statements of the witnesses including the minor victim recorded by the Police clearly go to show that the petitioner committed unnatural sexual activities with the minor victim aged about 6 years. 9. While referring to Section 12 of the Act of 2015, counsel for the petitioner has urged that releasing a juvenile on bail is a rule and his detention is an exception. True it is that under the provisions of Cr.P.C. in the matter of consideration of bail plea of an individual, seriousness of delinquency is a significant factor for nixing the bail and that aspect cannot be looked into when offender is a juvenile but then there are certain other relevant factors which are not to be eschewed by the Court. The law envisages that release of a juvenile is not desirable if it is belief of the Court that such release may bring the person in association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Similar view was taken by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vishal @ Ritik Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1520/2017) decided on 23.01.2018 10. The facts of the case relied upon by the petitioner are all together different from the facts of the present case, therefore the same is not applicable to the present case. 11. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1520/2017) decided on 23.01.2018 10. The facts of the case relied upon by the petitioner are all together different from the facts of the present case, therefore the same is not applicable to the present case. 11. Upon appreciation of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner, I do not foresee that releasing the petitioner on bail would bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, however, in the backdrop of his criminal delinquencies, I feel persuaded that such release would defeat the ends of justice as the allegations against juvenile are for offences of mental depravity, i.e., under Sections 377, 504, 427 IPC and Sections5(D), 6 of POCSO Act. Therefore, at this stage, releasing him on bail would not be in the interest of justice. May be, the petitioner is a juvenile, but he has committed a heinous offence with a minor child of 6 years, and both the Courts below have considered this aspect of the matter objectively with pragmatic approach. As regards the report of the Probation Officer, I am constrained to observe that the same is absolutely vague, cryptic and unspecific, and therefore, the same cannot pave the way for favourable disposition of the revision petition. Thus, I am unable to find any illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by the Courts below so as to invoke revisional jurisdiction in the matter. 12. In view thereof, the revision petition fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh revision petition for bail after recording the statement of Ramandeep. The trial court is directed to record his statement as early as possible.