Sahab Singh, Sachhi @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Petitioner-juvenile has preferred this revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short,

‘Act of 2015’) read with Section 397/401 Cr.P.C to challenge impugned judgment and order dated 2nd of April, 2018, passed by Special Judge

(POCSO Act Cases), Sri Ganganagar (for short, ‘learned appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.13/2018, whereby it has affirmed order

dated 16th of March, 2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sri Ganganagar (for short, ‘learned Board’).

The facts in brief are that an FIR bearing No.25/2018 came to be lodged at Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar for offences under

Sections 366 & 376DÂ and 3(1)(w) (i) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, wherein one Poonam was named as an accused person for the said offences.Â

During investigation, purportedly, on the basis of information solicited from the accused person, petitioner was also implicated in the matter and

eventually filing charge-sheet against him. On being apprehended, he was kept in Observation Home.  Petitioner, thereupon, applied for bail

before learned Board but the same was declined.  Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the appellate Court but the same has

also rejected his appeal.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter inasmuch as his name did not find mention in the

FIR. It is also contended by learned counsel that prosecutrix has not named the petitioner in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,

nor has attributed any overt act on his part.  It is also argued by learned counsel that both the Courts below have not at all cared to examine the

true purport of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 by considering juvenility of the petitioner. Â

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. Â

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary as well as report of the Probation Officer.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the materials available on record, in the backdrop of legislative intent

envisaged under Section 12 of the Act of 2015, I feel persuaded to interfere with the impugned orders.

As a matter of fact, both the Courts below were simply swayed by the seriousness of delinquency without prima facie examining the involvement of

petitioner in commission of offences.  Furthermore, the learned Courts below have not taken into account the mandate of law under Section 12 of

the Act of 2015. Â

Section 12 of the Act of 2015 envisages that bail is to be granted to a juvenile irrespective of any fetters contained under the provisions of Cr.P.C. For

denial of bail reasons are envisaged under proviso to sub-section (1) of the Act of 2015. I am afraid, in the instant case, petitioner has not incurred any

disqualification within the four corners of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act of 2015.

In view thereof, both the impugned orders are hereby upset and the revision petition is allowed. As a consequence thereof, petitioner-juvenile,

Sahab Singh @ Sachhi S/o Raju Singh, is ordered to be released on bail provided requisite bail bond is furnished by his guardian & maternal uncle

Mahendra Singh in a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Sri Ganganagar with further

stipulation that he shall make sincere endeavour to present juvenile (petitioner) before the Board on each and every date of hearing and as and when

he is called.