Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2809 (RAJ)

Appeal v. State

2019-11-07

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners (juvenile- through their natural guardian) as well as learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The allegation against the petitioners is of offence under Sections 341, 395 IPC. The bail application filed by the petitioners under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dungarpur was rejected vide order dated 06.08.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioners before the learned Special Judge of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Dungarpur and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 30.08.2019. 3. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 06.08.2019 and 30.08.2019 passed by the Courts below, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the petitioners are below 18 years of age and they have been falsely implicated in the case without any material evidence. It is further submitted that the similarly situated co-accused Ajay @ Gattu has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. Further there is no evidence to show that if the juvenile-petitioners are released on bail, then their release is likely to bring them 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 petitioners are 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 petitioners are in custody since long time and no further detention of the petitioners is required for any purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 counsel for respondent No.2 defended the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the petitioners as also the judgment passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. 6. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for respondent No.2 defended the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the petitioners 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. 9. 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. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dungarpur as well as order dated 30.08.2019 passed by learned Special Judge of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Dungarpur, declining bail to the petitioners are hereby set aside. 11. It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioners (1) Appeal S/o Ranjeet Kharadi Meena and (2) Toofan @ Aashish S/o Surajmal Kalasua Meena, shall be released on bail in FIR No.153/2019, Police Station Sadar, District Dungarpur, upon furnishing a personal bond by their natural guardian, 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, Dungapur; 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.