Rahul vs State And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through his natural guardian father Dhanraj S/o Mohan Lal) as well as learned Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections 302, 201 IPC. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act

of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajsamand was rejected vide order dated 27.04.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order,

an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Rajsamand and the same has been dismissed by learned

Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 10.05.2019.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 27.04.2019 and 10.05.2019 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before

this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is below 18 years of age and he has been falsely involved in the case without any

material evidence. The main accused in this case are Nitesh @ Raghu Yadav and Bhupendra @ Bhanu Yadav. Further there is no evidence to show

that if the juvenile-petitioner is released on bail, then his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose them to

moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 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. Section 12 of the Act of 2015 clearly

provides that if the accused is juvenile, then he should be released on bail, but learned Courts below fully ignored the provisions of the Act of 2015.

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.

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.

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

The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 conveys the intention of the Legislature to grant bail to the juvenile, irrespective of nature or gravity of

the offence, alleged to have been committed by him and bail can be denied only in the case where there appears reasonable grounds for believing that

the release 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 ends of justice.

In this context, I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the courts below.

Having carefully examined provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act vis-a-vis the orders passed by the courts below, I do not find that any of the

exceptional circumstances, to decline bail to a juvenile, as indicated in Section 12 of the Act of 2015, is made out.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 27.04.2019 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

Board, Rajsamand as well as order dated 10.05.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Rajsamand, declining bail to the petitioner

are hereby set aside.

It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Rahul S/o Dhanraj shall be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian

father (Dhanraj S/o Mohan Lal), in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, Rajsamand; with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall appear before the said court or any other court,

during pendency of the investigation/trial in the case and that their guardian shall keep proper look after of the delinquent child and secure them away

from the company of known criminals.