Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vidhi Se Sangharshrat Minor Khemraj ... vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 6 June, 2016
Author: Prakash Gupta
Bench: Prakash Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.691/2016 Vidhi Se Sangharshrat Minor Khemraj Prajapat in State of Rajasthan Date of Order: 06.06.2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri for the petitioner/s.
Nr. Sudesh Saini PP for the State.
Mr. G.S. Rathore for the complainant.
Mr. Hariprasad, C.O. Nasirabad, IO.
This revision petition has been filed by the Juvenile Khemraj Prajapt through his father Buddharam, under section 397 read with 401, 372 Cr.PC. read with Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children Act) against the order dt. 16/5/2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge Ajmer in Misc. Cr. Appeal No.103/2016 by which the appeal filed by the juvenile has been dismissed and order dated 10/5/2016 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer dismissing the bail application filed by juvenile under Section 12 of the Act has been affirmed.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that an FIR bearing No.130/2016 came to be lodged at PS- Nasirabad Sadar, Distt. Ajmer for the offences mentioned therein wherein the concerned police arrested the petitioner and after completion of investigation, filed challen before the Juvenile Justice Board where the case is pending.
On the basis of said FIR, the juvenile was arrested by the police. Thereafter the juvenile through his father filed bail application before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer, but the same was rejected vide order dated 16/5/2016. Against the said order, the juvenile filed a criminal appeal, but the same was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer on 10/5/2016. Against the said order, this revision petition has been preferred.
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
Learned counsel for the juvenile has submitted that as per Section 12 of the Act of 2000 it is incumbent for the court to grant bail to the delinquent juvenile in conflict with law unless the court returns a finding that there appear reasonable grounds for believing that in case the delinquent juvenile in conflict with law is released on bail, it will 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.
Shri Mantri has further submitted that except using the golden words specified in the section, there has been no material to arrive at finding returned in the impugned order that if the petitioner is released on bail, it will 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. It is further contended that gravity of offence is no ground for the court to deny bail to the delinquent juvenile.
Reliance has been placed upon Bhanwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan { 2007 (1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 254}.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned PP, I have gone through the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below.
In the case of Bhanwar Lal, it has been held as under:-
3. Under Section 12(1) of the Act when any juvenile accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such persons shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear 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 the ends of justice. The language of Section 12 of the Act using the word 'shall', is mandatory and it provides non-obstante clause by using the expression notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, which 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 the bail can be denied only in the case where there appear 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 the ends of justice.
4. In the instant case, there is a report of Probation Officer, Jodhpur wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has not been found to have a tendency to commit offence nor he is known to have associated with bad persons. It has also been mentioned that during custody his conduct has been good and it is expected from him that he will be a good citizen. It has also been said that it is in the interest of the juvenile to release him on bail.
Section 13 of the Act of 2000 is not an idle formality. It casts a solemn duty upon the Court to take active steps for reformation of the delinquent juvenile. It will be apposite to reproduce Section 13 of the Act of 2000 as under:-
13. Information to parent, guardian or probation officer.- Where a juvenile is arrested, the officer incharge of the police station or the special juvenile police unit to which the juvenile is brought shall, as soon as may be after the arrest, inform-
(a) the parent or guardian of the juvenile, if he can be found of such arrest and direct him to be present at the Board before which the juvenile will appear; and
(b) the probation officer of such arrest to enable him to obtain information regarding the antecedents and family background of the juvenile and other material circumstances likely to be of assistance to the Board for making the inquiry.
Section 12 of the Act of 2000 makes provisions of bail mandatory, as the legislature has been of the considered opinion that young impressionable mind should not go astray in the company of hardened criminals or brought up in atmosphere which is incongenial. Grant of bail to delinquent juvenile is for the purpose that while staying with the family under the supervision of the natural guardian, child can be reared to become part of the social main stream. Therefore, Section 12 of the Act of 2000, prescribe three conditions for denial of the bail which have been enumerated herein above. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 also envisage a situation where Court can place the delinquent juvenile in conflict with law under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person.
Section 13 of the Act of 2000 specify a duty upon the Probation Officer and enumerate the factors which ought to be considered by the Probation Officer.
Having gone through the impugned orders of the learned courts below I find that there is no evidence available on record to show that there appear reasonable ground for believing that in case the delinquent juvenile in conflict with law is released on bail, it will 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.
Consequently, the order dated 10/50/2016 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer and the order dated 16th May, 2016 passed by the lower appellate Court are set aside and juvenile Khemraj Prajapat S/o Buddharam deserves to be released on bail provided his father Buddharam submits bail bonds in the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lac) with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 1,00,000./- (rupees one lac only) each to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer with the stipulation that he will produce the juvenile before the Juvenile Justice Board on all dates of hearing and as and when he is called upon to do so during the pendency of enquiry.
This revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH GUPTA), J.
Bairwa/64 all corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed Kailash Chandra Bairwa P