Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 473 (RAJ)

X S/o Rajaram v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-02-11

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2022
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This criminal appeal under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) act, 2015 (for short 'the act of 2015' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the Children Court (Sessions Judge) Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Criminal Misc. Case No.583/2021, whereby the application under section 12 of the act of 2015 was dismissed by the trial court. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the juvenile appellant was arrested by the police on 19.01.2018 and he was put to trial as adult by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 18.05.2018. It is submitted that charges have been framed against the appellant on 18.12.2020, however, thereafter none of the single prosecution witness has been examined before the trial court, where the appellant is facing trial. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that from the statements of the injured eye witness Krishna Lal, it is clear that no specific role has been attributed to the appellant and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons. It is further submitted that as per Section 21 of the act of 2015, the appellant cannot be awarded death sentence or life imprisonment. It is also submitted that the appellant is in custody since last more than four years and there is no possibility that the trial against him is completed in near future. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no criminal history of the appellant and there is all possibility that if the appellant placed in custody for long period, it may affect his future. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 4. Section 12(1) of the act of 2015 reads as under: '12. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 4. Section 12(1) of the act of 2015 reads as under: '12. (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision' 5. From perusal of Section 12(1) of the act of 2015, it is clear that a delinquent juvenile ordinarily has to be released on bail irrespective of nature of offence alleged to have been committed by him unless it is shown by evidence that if he is released on bail, there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the delinquent juvenile 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 the ends of justice. The nature of offence and the merits of the case do not have any relevance. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material while opposing the bail and make out any of the grounds provided in the Section 12(1) of the act of 2015, which may persuade the Court not to release the juvenile on bail. But in this case, there is nothing on record to show that the release of the appellant is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 6. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. But in this case, there is nothing on record to show that the release of the appellant is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 6. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders dated 25.08.2021 is set aside and it is directed that appellant - 'X' S/o Rajaram be released on bail provided his natural guardian-father/mother Rajaram furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Children Court (Sessions Judge) Sri Ganganagar with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he/she shall produce the appellant before the Children Court (Sessions Judge) Sri Ganganagar or any other Court till the enquiry or trial is concluded.