Jetha Ram vs State And Ors

This criminal revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act of 2015'

hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases), Jaisalmer (for short 'the

appellate court' hereinafter), whereby the appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the juvenile through his natural guardian against the order

dated 13.11.2019 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jaisalmer (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) on an application under

Section 12 of the Act of 2015, whereby the prayer for releasing the juvenile on bail was dismissed by the trial court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the petitioner was not named even in the FIR as well as in the statements of the

prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the prosecutrix in her both statements has specifically stated that one

Pratap Singh sexually assaulted her. It is further submitted that on 26.9.2019, supplementary statements of the prosecutrix were recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she for the first time has named the accused-petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case as some monetary dispute was going on between him and brother of the prosecutrix. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is juvenile and is in custody since Nov., 2019.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the criminal revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the report of the Probation Officer dated 16.2.2019,

submitted before this Court.

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 decisionâ€​

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 petitioner 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.

It is also noticed that in the report dated 16.12.2019 the Probation Officer has recommended that no other case is pending against the juvenile.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the report of the Superintendent, Children Home, Jaisalmer, wherein it is recommended that

the petitioner may be allowed to connect with the society.

In view of the above discussion, I am inclined to allow this criminal revision petition. Hence, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders

dated 18.11.2019 and 13.11.2019 are set aside and it is directed that petitioner â€" Jetha Ram s/o Shri Chutra Ram be released on bail provided his

natural guardian-father Chutra Ram S/o Shri Heera Ram furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with a surety bond in the like amount to

the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jaisalmer with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he/she shall

produce the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board, Jaisalmer or any other Court till the enquiry or trial is concluded.

The report of the Probation Officer dated 16.12.2019, be taken on record.