HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 528/2019

Vishnu Kumar S/o Shri Poonam Chand, By Caste Valmiki, Minor,
Through His Natural Guardian, Father, Poonam Chand S/o Shri
Mangatu Ram, B/c Valmiki, Aged about 33 years, R/o Momasar
Bass, Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner. (Confined In Children
Home, Bikaner

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Vijay Kumar S/o Naina Ram, By Caste Valmiki, Resident
Of Ward No. 4, Momasar Bass, Sri Dungargarh, Distt.
Bikaner.

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr Sanjay Pandit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. KR Bhati

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment / Order

02/07/2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through

his natural guardian father Poonam Chand) as well as learned

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and

counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant.

The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under

Sections 377 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The bail

application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of

2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner

was rejected vide order dated 18.04.2019. Being aggrieved by the

said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned

(Downloaded on 02/07/2019 at 10:17:14 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-528/2019]

Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases), Bikaner and the same has been

dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated

23.04.2019.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 18.04.2019 and

23.04.2019 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has

preferred this revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that

the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case and the

petitioner is below 18 years of age. Further 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 custody since long time 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 and learned

counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant 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.

(Downloaded on 02/07/2019 at 10:17:14 PM)

(3 of 4) [CRLR-528/2019]

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 18.04.2019 passed by the Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner as well as order dated

23.04.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases),

Bikaner, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside.

It is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Vishnu

Kumar S/o Shri Poonam Chand, shall be released on bail, upon

furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (father Poonam

(Downloaded on 02/07/2019 at 10:17:14 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-528/2019]

Chand), in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with a surety in the

like amount to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner; 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 their guardian shall keep proper look after of the

delinquent child and secure them away from the company of

known criminals.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
65-MS/-

(Downloaded on 02/07/2019 at 10:17:14 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)