High CourtsSingle Bench

Joga Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 24 February 2020 · Citation: (2020) 02 RAJ CK 0428

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vijay Bishnoi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 12, 12(1), 102
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1563 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

32 paragraphs · 707 words

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 06.11.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and

Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, Balotra, District Barmer (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 31.10.2019 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Barmer (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 the allegations against the petitioner of commiting sexual assault upon the prosecutrix and

trespassing her house are false. It is submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioner and the prosecutrix were in relation and the petitioner went to the

house of the prosecutrix on her call. It is further submitted that the family members of the prosecutrix found both of them in the house and tried to

catch hold of the petitioner but he ran away from the scene of crime and thereafter this false FIR has been lodged against the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the material available on record.

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.

In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 06.11.2019 and 31.10.2019 are set aside and it is directed

that petitioner â€" Joga Ram S/o Gumna Ram be released on bail provided his natural guardian-father Gumna 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, Barmer with the

stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he/she shall produce the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board, Barmer or any other Court till

the enquiry or trial is concluded.