X S/O Kailash Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Manoj Kumar Garg, J

Instant cr. misc. application has been filed by the petitioner-applicant seeking correction in the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by this Court in SB Cr. Revision Petition No.1622/2023 whereby the revision petition was allowed and the Juvenile was ordered to be released on bail.

Counsel for the petitioner-applicant submits that inadvertently due to typographical error, in the subject matter of the case he has not mentioned the details of the order of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Paldi, Dist. Bhilwara rejecting the bail of the petitioner. Counsel submits that the aforesaid error also crept in the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by this Court. Therefore, it is prayed that necessary correction be made in the order dated 23.02.2024, passed by this Court.

In view of above submissions made and for reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. The order dated 23.02.2024 passed in SB Cr. Revision Petition No.1622/2023 is hereby modified and now be read as under :

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through his natural guardian) as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Section 302 of IPC. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 before learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Paldi, District Bhilwara was rejected vide order dated 08.11.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.239/2023 and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 20.11.2023.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 08.11.2023 and 20.112023 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific allegation has been made against the petitioner for inflicting injuries to the deceased and no recovery was made from the possession of the petitioner. Recovery was made from co-accused Kailash Chandera. Challan has already been presented and no investigation is pending. Further, the petitioner is below 18 years of age and 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 juvenile home and trial of the case is yet pending 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 08.11.2023 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Paldi, District Bhilwara as well as order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, declining bail to the petitioner is hereby set aside.

It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Juvenile K S/o Kailash Chandra shall be released on bail in FIR No.174/2023 Police Station Shambhugarh, District Bhilwara upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-each along with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Paldi, District Bhilwara; 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 his guardian shall look after the delinquent child and secure him away from the company of known criminals.”