Virendra Singh vs State 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 07.03.2020 passed by the Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offence) Act and Child Rights Protection Commission Act, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, in Criminal Appeal No.14/2020 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur in FIR No.22/2020 registered at Police Station Mathania, District Jodhpur, for the offences under Sections 376-DA & 365 IPC read with Section 5/6-G of POCSO Act.

The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act before the Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur was dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2020.

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 06.03.2020, 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 07.03.2020.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except for the case under consideration, no other case of any offence is pending against the petitioner. He argues that petitioner's conduct is not questionable and there is neither any likelihood of bringing the petitioner in association with known criminals nor is it likely to expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger.

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 376 IPC and Section 5/6 of POSCO Act 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.

In response to Court's concern that in case the petitioner is released, he will meet, confront or otherwise assault the victim (who too is a juvenile), learned counsel submits that petitioner resides at least 40 kms away from prosecutrix residence and his guardian will undertake that the petitioner does not not interact or influence the prosecutrix.

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.

The Court is required to strike a balance between the rights of the petitioner vis a vis right, privacy and sentiments of the victim (M) - prosecutrix who too is a juvenile - a minor girl of tender age of 14. In case the present petitioner intentionally or unintentionally comes in contact or even appears before the victim, it will be like a nightmare for her and she may be emotionally shattered.

But having regard to the assurance given by Mr. Bhawar Singh that petitioner's father/guardian will ensure that petitioner will not appear before the prosecutrix and considering that petitioner resides 40 kms away from the prosecutrix village, I am inclined to accede to the request of release of the petitioner. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner (that of committing rape of a minor girl), 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 06.03.2020 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur as well as the order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the learned Appellate Court i.e. Special Judge, (Protection of Children from Sexual Offence) Act and Child Rights Protection Commission Act, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, in Criminal Appeal No.14/2020 are, hereby, set aside and it is directed that the petitioner - Virendra Singh S/o Hukam Singh shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian Shri Hukam Singh (Father) in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur 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. It shall be personal responsibility of the petitioner's father to ensure that petitioner keeps himself away from the prosecutrix.

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.