Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2535 (RAJ)

Ayaz Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2019-09-19

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through his natural guardian mother Farida) as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections 147, 148, 452, 307, 323, 506 R/w Section 149 IPC. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh was rejected vide order dated 05.09.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 07.09.2019. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 05.09.2019 and 07.09.2019 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during investigation, the petitioner was granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and in terms of the said bail order, he was to appear before the Board on 17.01.2019. But due to some unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not appear before the Board, therefore he was summoned by way of a detained letter and his presence was secured on 04.02.2019 and he was granted bail by the Board. Thereafter again since the mother of the petitioner was ill, he could not appear before the Board and again a detained letter was issued against him and ultimately on 05.09.2019 he himself surrendered before the Board and moved bail application but the same was rejected by the Board. Against the rejection of his bail application, the petitioner moved an appeal before the appellate court which was also rejected. Counsel submits that petitioner is below 18 years of age and there is no evidence to show that if the juvenile-petitioner is released on bail, then her release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that her 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. 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. 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 submits that the petitioner has jumped the bail and now is in judicial custody. Counsel assures this Court that in future, the petitioner will remain present on each and every date before the Board and if he again jumps the bail then the indulgence of bail may not be extended to the petitioner. 4. 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. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2015. 6. 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. 7. In this context, I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the courts below. 8. 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. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 05.09.2019 passed y the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh as well as order dated 07.09.2019 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside. 10. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 05.09.2019 passed y the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh as well as order dated 07.09.2019 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside. 10. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Shri Ayaz Khan S/o Shri Kabil Hussain, shall be released on bail in FIR No.297/2012 Police Station Pratapgarh, upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (mother Farida W/o Shri Kabil Hussain), in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along with a surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh; 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 them away from the company of known criminals.