High CourtsSingle Bench

Moti Ram @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 13 September 2018 · Citation: (2018) 09 RAJ CK 0034

HON’BLE JUDGES
VIJAY BISHNOI, j
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 12(1), 102 · Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161, 164
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 953 of 2018
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 · 696 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 17.7.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases (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 10.7.2018 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur (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 in the present matter, FIR has been lodged by the uncle of the 2. prosecutrix and in the said FIR,

the petitioner has not been named as accused. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not

named the petitioner as accused, however, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has named the petitioner along with other co-

accused person. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 4.7.2018 and charge sheet has already been filed in the matter and no other case

of similar nature is pending against him.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

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€​Â

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 3. 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, 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 17.7.2018 and 10.7.2018 are set aside and it is directed

that petitioner â€" Moti Ram son of Dharu Ram shall be released on bail provided his natural guardian-father Dharu 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, Jodhpur with the

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

enquiry or trial is concluded.