Vinod vs State And Ors

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 04.09.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Chittorgarh (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 02.09.2020 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Chittorgarh (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 vehemently submitted that the petitioner is below 18 years of age and he has been falsely involved in the case without any material evidence. 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. Learned Courts below in quite cursory manner have declined bail to the applicant-petitioner.

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.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned 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 decision"

From a bare perusal of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, it appears that for the protection of juvenile, this special Act has been enacted. Section 12 of Act of 2015 indicates that a delinquent juvenile ordinarily has to be released on bail irrespective of nature of offence alleged to have been committed 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 section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, 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 04.09.2020 and 02.09.2020 are set aside and it is directed that petitioner - Vinod S/o Shri Mohan Lal Rebari shall be released on bail provided his natural guardian Dashrath Singh S/o Goverdhan Singh 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, Chittorgarh with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall produce the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board, Chittorgarh or any other Court till the enquiry or trial is concluded.