HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
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)
—-Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner : Mr. Mukhtar Khan.
For Respondent-State : Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, PP.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order
17/05/2017
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)
[CRLR-558/2017]
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)
[CRLR-558/2017]
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)
[CRLR-558/2017]
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.
(P.K. LOHRA)J.
a.asopa/-15
