Mahendra Ram vs State 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.

The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections 384, 458, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The bail application filed by the

petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur was rejected vide order dated 02.11.2018.

Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Jodhpur and the same has been

dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 19.11.2018.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 02.11.2018 and 19.11.2018 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 and 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 challan of the case has already been presented before the trial court. 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. Counsel has placed reliance on order passed by this Court in S.B. Crl. Revision

Petition No. 1211/2018 ‘Ravi Vs. State of Raj.’ decided on 02.01.2019.

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 and submits that the prosecutrix is aged

about 15 years and there are serious allegation of committing rape against the petitioner. Hence, looking to the gravity of the offence, the bail should

not be granted to the petitioner.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2015 and

carefully gone through the challan papers.

The prosecutrix, who is minor girl of 15 years, specifically stated in her statement recorded by the Police that whenever she went to school, the

petitioner was always stalking her and also teased and harassed her. She further stated that the petitioner took her photographs and threatened her

that he will viral her photographs on social media i.e. on whats app and facebook and thereafter he committed rape with her. The petitioner also

threatened the prosecutrix to get money and gold from her house. Due to fear and threatening, the prosecutrix took Rs.35,000/- and a gold chain from

her house and gave the same to the petitioner. Thereafter again on 13.10.2018 in the night when the prosecutrix was sleeping on the roof with her

mother, the petitioner came there and caught-hold the prosecutrix. Upon raising hue and cry, prosecutrix’s mother got awake and also her uncle

and cousin brother came there and tried to catch the petitioner but he fled away.

The aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the Police clearly go to show that the petitioner committed rape with a minor girl of 15 years

and also threatened and forced her to theft money and gold chain from her house.

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

The facts of the case relied upon by the petitioner are all together different from the facts of the present case, therefore the same is not applicable to

the present case.

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 384, 458, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of 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 favorable 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. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh revision petition for

bail after recording the statement of the prosecutrix. The trial court is directed to record her statement as early as possible.