Purvesh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

By this revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), the petitioner, who is a "juvenile in conflict with law" has challenged the order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offence) Act and Child Rights Protection Commission Act, Dungarpur, in Criminal Appeal No.05/2019 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dungarpur in FIR No.159/2018 registered at Police Station Ramsagda, District Dungarpur, for the offences under Sections 302, 392 & 201/34 IPC.

The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act before the Juvenile Justice Board, Dungarpur was dismissed vide order dated 02.01.2019.

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 02.01.2019, an appeal under Section 101 of the Act was filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 18.03.2019.

Dissatisfied by the impugned orders, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main accused - Hritik was firstly arrested, from whom a knife and amount of Rs.1500/- was recovered and it is only on the basis of information given by the main accused, petitioner has been implicated and arrested.

Learned counsel further submits that there is no other case of like nature pending against the petitioner, who is a juvenile. He argues that the present petitioner is languishing in Children Observation Home since 31.12.2018.

It is also argued that if the present revision petition is not allowed and the petitioner is kept in detention home, his mental so also physical health would be adversely impacted.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the acceptance of revision petition by saying that allegations of offence under Section 302 IPC are levelled against the petitioner hence, he should not be released on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the provisions of the Act.

It is well settled that ordinarily a "juvenile in conflict with law" must be released on bail unless the exceptional circumstances mentioned in Section 12 of the Act are clearly made out by evidence and the Juvenile Justice Board on perusing the material available on the record comes to a definite conclusion that in the circumstance of the case, it would not be in the interest of the juvenile to release him on bail. It is also equally settled that gravity and nature of the offence cannot be looked into, while considering, bail application, particularly that of a juvenile.

After carefully examining the record, I find that in both the impugned orders no exceptional circumstances as indicated in Section 12 of the Act to decline bail to the juvenile, have been pointed out. Learned Board as well as the learned Appellate Court have failed to comprehend the import and purport of the mandate of Section 12 of the Act and other provisions governing a juvenile. The bail application has been rejected on the basis of unfounded apprehension.

The Act being a beneficial and social oriented legislation, aimed to treat the juvenile differently, needs to be given full effect by all concerned, whenever a matter involving a juvenile comes for consideration before them. In the absence of any cogent material or evidence of existence of reasonable grounds, it can not be, as a matter of course, said that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

In view of what has been noticed above and in absence of any material or information, it cannot be said with certitude that if he is brought in the main stream of the society, he is likely to go in company or in association of known criminals and same would expose him to crimes of like nature, as mandated by Section 12 of the Act.

In view of the above, the revision petition deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is hereby allowed. Order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Dungarpur as well as the order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the learned Appellate Court i.e. Special Judge, (Protection of Children from Sexual Offence) Act and Child Rights Protection Commission Act, Dungarpur, in Criminal Appeal No.05/2019 (CIS No.05/2019) are, hereby, set aside and it is directed that the petitioner - Purvesh S/o Mani Lal Gameti Meena shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian Shri Mani Lal Gameti (Father) in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, one of the surety must be of petitioner's mother to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Dungarpur with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing he shall produce the petitioner before the said Board or any other Court during pendency of the inquiry in the case and that his guardian shall keep proper look after of the petitioner and keep him away from the company of known criminals.

This Court is of the view that in the prevailing circumstances of complete lock-down amidst spread of COVID-19, furnishing of two sureties will be difficult on the one hand and the same may pose eminent threat to the concerned. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing the personal bond. He may furnish requisite sureties by 26 th June, 2020 to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

It would be required of the concerned Superintendent of Police/Jailer to apprise the petitioner about consequence of violation of the bond as stipulated in Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code, while releasing the petitioner on bail.

Petitioner shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. In case, he fails to furnish surety bonds by the stipulated time, the instant order will come to an end automatically.