Dalveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan

M.N Bhandari, J.—The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur, whereby the application moved u/s 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2000") was rejected. An appeal preferred against the said order was also rejected by the Appellate Court vide order dated 01.12.2009.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below failed to consider the import of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 and thereby, mainly considered the offence on its merit whereas while hearing the matter on application u/s 12 of the Act of 2000, the merit of offence is not be considered. It is a case where the allegation against the petitioner is for commissioning of offence u/s 376 of IPC. The way, in which occurrence taken place raise question on alleged commissioning of offence. It is stated that there is nothing on record to show that petitioner''s case is falling in one of the exception given u/s 12 of the Act of 2000 to deny bail.

The prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is stated that petitioner is likely to be in the company of such persons, where they may commit offence and looking to the aforesaid, petitioner was rightly denied benefit of bail. It is further stated that petitioner is at the age of more than 18 years in view of the report submitted by the medical jurist.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

Before coming to the merit of the case, it would be gainful to quote the Section 12 of the Act of 2005. Section 12 of the Act of 2005 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:

Section 12. Bail of Juvenile- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is 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 institution or fit person 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.

(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under Sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can brought before a Board.

(3) When such person is not released on bail under Sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.

Perusal of the Section 12 of the Act of 2000 shows that bail can be denied to a juvenile only on the grounds narrated therein. In view of the aforesaid, the bail cannot be denied to a juvenile after considering the merit of the offence committed u/s 376 of IPC. The fact available on record does not show that petitioner is falling in any of the exception given u/s 12 of the Act of 2000 to deny benefit of bail. In view of the aforesaid, two orders passed by the Courts below cannot be allowed to stand. The argument further raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is not at the age of more than 18 years. The finding recorded by two Courts below does not show that petitioner is at the age or more than 18 years. The petitioner''s case was considered treating it to be juvenile and if the State was aggrieved by the order, then it could have challenged the same on the ground that consideration of the case u/s 12 of the Act of 2000 itself is bad. No such challenge exists, in view of the aforesaid, even last contention raised by the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner is entitled for the benefit provided u/s 12 of the Act of 2000 and deserves to be enlarged on bail. Therefore, I consider it just and proper to release the juvenile namely, Dalveer Singh s/o Shri Diwan Singh in FIR No. 283/2009 registered at Police Station Pahari, District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 376 of IPC provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court concerned on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

In view of discussions made above, the orders passed by the Courts below are quashed and set aside.

The revision petition is allowed.