Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh vs State on 20 July, 2020
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 445/2020
Mukesh S/o Sh. Heeralal, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Kagdar Mandwa
Fala Badli, P.s. Rishabdev, Dist. Udaipur (Raj.). (At The Time Of
Incident Petitioner Was Minor) (Presently Lodged In Juvenile
Observation Home, Udaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Shrimali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, Pp
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment / Order 20/07/2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile at the time of incident) as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before the learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases), Udaipur was rejected vide order dated 17.04.2020. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Session Judge, Udaipur and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 23.04.2020.
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 17.04.2020 and 23.04.2020 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was below 18 years of age at the time of incident and he has falsely been (Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:24:04 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLR-445/2020] implicated in this case. It is further submitted that challan of the case has already been presented. 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.
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.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2015.
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. (Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:24:04 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-445/2020] In this context, I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the courts below. 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.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 17.04.2020 passed by the learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases), Udaipur as well as order dated 23.04.2020 passed by learned Session Judge, Udaipur, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside.
It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Mukesh S/o Sh. Heeralal, shall be released on bail in FIR No.309/2019 Police Station Rishabdev, District Udaipur upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases), Udaipur; 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.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 78-MS/-
(Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:24:04 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)