High CourtsSingle Bench

Yogesh, Rohit @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 6 September 2018 · Citation: (2018) 09 RAJ CK 0016

HON’BLE JUDGES
VIJAY BISHNOI, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 12, 12(1), 102
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 905 of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

35 paragraphs · 757 words

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 23.07.2018 passed by the learned Children Court (Special Court, Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Cases), Sri Ganganagar (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 09.07.2018 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sri Ganganagar (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.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and perused the report of the Probation Officer dated 28.08.2018 submitted

before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the police investigation, it is borne out that petitioner and the prosecutrix were in relation from

some time and both of them have decided to marry each other. It is submitted that prosecutrix went to Jaipur as per her own will and thereafter met

the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has abducted the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that petitioner and the prosecutrix

are minor and have developed physical relation as per their own will. It is also submitted that petitioner was not involved in any other criminal case.

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 decisionâ€​Â

From perusal of section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, it is clear 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.

It is also noticed that on the report dated 28.08.2018, the Probation Officer has mentioned that no other case is pending against the juvenile.

In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 23.07.2018 and 09.07.2018 are set aside and it is directed

that petitioner â€" Yogesh @ Rohit S/o Shri Shivdayal shall be released on bail provided his natural guardian-father Trilok Das Swami S/o Shri Surjan

Das 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, Sri Ganganagar with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall produce the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice

Board, Sri Ganganagar or any other Court till the enquiry or trial is concluded.

The report of the Probation Officer dated 28.08.2018 be taken on record.