SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sohel vs State on 17 May, 2017

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 558 / 2017
Sohel S/o Shri Chand Mohd., Minor, aged 15 years, by caste Chisti
Muslim, resident of Ward No.3, Namak Mazdoor Colony, Nawa City
Through His Natural Guardian Father, Chand Mohd S/o Peer Mohd.,
by Caste Chisti Muslim, Resident of Ward No. 3, Namak Mazdoor
Colony, Nawa City, Tehsil Nawa, Distict Nagaur.
(Lodged in Children Home, Nagaur)

The State of Rajasthan

For Petitioner : Mr. Mukhtar Khan.

For Respondent-State : Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, PP.

Petitioner-juvenile Sohel, through his guardian – father

Chand Mohd., has preferred this revision petition under Section

102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,

2015 (for short, ‘JJ Act’) to assail impugned order dated 22 nd of

April 2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur (for

short, ‘learned appellate Court’) confirming order dated 17 th of

April 2017, passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,

Nagaur (for short, ‘learned Board’).

Succinctly stated, the facts of case are that a complaint

against petitioner-juvenile for offence under Section 377 IPC and

5/6 of POCSO Act came to be registered as FIR No.74/2017 at

Police Station Nawa, Nagaur. Thereafter, the juvenile was
(2 of 4)

produced before the learned Board and presently he is lodged in

Observation Home. At the behest of petitioner, an application

under Section 12 of the JJ Act was laid before learned Board,

Nagaur bail but the same was rejected vide order dated 17 th of

April 2017. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was

preferred before Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur but that too

did not fructify to the advantage of petitioner-juvenile and the

learned appellate Court rejected the appeal.

It is argued by learned counsel that looking to the age of

petitioner, who is a child in conflict with law, benevolent view is

desirable in the matter of grant of bail for facilitating his

reformation. Learned counsel has further urged that both the

Courts below have not examined the afflictions of child, in conflict

with law, in right perspective, and therefore, interference in

exercise of revisional jurisdiction is warranted. Lastly learned

counsel would contend that in absence of direct evidence against

the juvenile for commission of alleged offences it is clear case of

false implication.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the revision petition. Learned Public Prosecutor would

contend that looking to the gravity and magnitude of the offence

attributed to the juvenile, it is not desirable to exercise revisional

jurisdiction for enlarging him on bail.

A report dated 03.04.2017 sent by Govt. Communication

Kishore Home, Child Empowerment Department, Nagaur is

produced before this Court by learned Public Prosecutor showing

conduct of the petitioner. As per the report, conduct and
(3 of 4)

behaviour of the petitioner is normal. The social status of

juvenile’s family is also shown to be BPL.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Public Prosecutor, and perused the impugned orders as well as

materials available on record.

The JJ Act confers power upon the State to make special

provision for children by invoking Article 15 of the Constitution of

India. Article 39(e), (f), 45 47 further make the State

responsible for ensuring that all needs of children are met and

their basic human rights are protected. While it is true that a

child, who is in conflict with law, being charged for heinous offence

can be tried as a general accused after holding preliminary inquiry

under Section 15 of the JJ Act, but then, while considering the bail

plea of the juvenile, the Courts are expected to adopt a pragmatic

approach rather than purely idealistic and pedantic approach. As

the basic object of JJ Act is to protect human rights of children and

provide them congenial atmosphere for reformation, therefore, in

the matter of grant of bail, a liberal approach is the need of hour.

True it is that petitioner-juvenile is charged for offence under

Section 377 IPC 5/6 of POCSO Act, but then looking to his

tender age, report dated 03.04.2017 and mitigating

circumstances, in my considered opinion, both the Courts below

have seriously erred in declining to exercise discretion in his

favour for grant of bail.

Accordingly, I feel persuaded to exercise revisional

jurisdiction in the matter to upset both the impugned orders

passed by learned Courts below. In the backdrop of facts and
(4 of 4)

circumstances of the instant case, impugned orders suffer from

the vice of impropriety and, therefore, merits interference in

exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Resultantly both the impugned orders are hereby quashed

and set aside and the revision petition is allowed. As a

consequence thereof, petitioner-juvenile, Sohel S/o Shri Chand

Mohd., is ordered to be released on bail provided requisite bail

bond is furnished by his guardian – father Chand Mohd. in a sum

of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction

of Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur 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.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation