Ajay Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through his natural guardian) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and counsel for the complainant.

The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Section 341, 376, 342 IPC And Section 4,16 of POCSO Act. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Udaipur was rejected vide order dated 30.03.2018. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 11.04.2018.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 30.03.2018 and 11.04.2018 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that petitioner is below 18 years of age he has been falsely involved in the case without any material evidence. 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. 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. It is also argued that there nothing adverse has been brought on record in the report of the Probation officer. He placed reliance on orders passed by this Court in S.B. Crl. Revision Petition No. 1070/2017 'Khemraj Vs. State of Raj.' decided on 26.08.2017, S.B. Crl. Revision Petition No. 141/2015 'Praveen Khokhar Vs. State of Raj.' decided on 18.02.2015, S.B. Crl. Revision Petition No. 200/2018 'Vipin Kumar Vs. State of Raj.' decided on 14.09.2018, 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.

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. Similar view was taken by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vishal @ Ritik Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1520/2017) decided on 23.01.2018

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 376, 354 IPC and Sections 5(n)/6, 7/8 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, at this stage, releasing him on bail would not be in the interest of justice. May be, 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. As regards the report of the Probation Officer, I am constrained to observe that the same is absolutely vague, cryptic and unspecific, and therefore, the same cannot pave the way for favourable disposition of the revision petition. 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.

In view thereof, the revision petition fails and same is hereby dismissed.