Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2584 (RAJ)

Surendra Kumar @ Chandiram v. State of Rajasthan

2019-09-24

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through his natural guardian father) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(I)(N) IPC and Section 5(L)/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, Bikaner was rejected vide order dated 15.01.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Court, Juvenile Justice Act, Bikaner and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 22.01.2019. 3. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 15.01.2019 and 22.01.2019 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. 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. 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 prosecutrix is aged about 13 years and there are serious allegation of committing rape against the petitioner. 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. 7. The prosecutrix, who is minor girl of 13 years, has specifically deposed in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner has committed rape with her. 8. 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. 9. 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 363, 366, 376(2)(I)(N) IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act. Therefore, at this stage, releasing him on bail would not be in the interest of justice. Although, the petitioner is a juvenile, but he has ravished a minor girl, and both the Courts below have considered this aspect of the matter objectively with pragmatic approach. 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. 10. In view thereof, the revision petition fails and same is hereby dismissed.