1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT Amarlal Vs. The State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1562/2009) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397/ 401 Cr.P.C read with Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000. Date of Order :- 18th November, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Bharat Saini, for the petitioner. Mr.Javed Chaudhary, public prosecutor. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned public prosecutor. Vide order dated 13.11.2009, this Court had asked the learned public prosecutor to find out from the concerned SHO about the antecedents of the present accused-petitioner as well as about the antecedents of Tolaram, who is alleged to be the kingpin of a gang, which is engaged in lifting of motorcycles. According to the learned public prosecutor, while five cases are pending against Tolaram, there are four cases which are pending against the present accused-petitioner. Mr. Bharat Saini, the learned counsel for the accused- petitioner, has contended that out of the four cases, which are presently pending against the accused-petitioner, two cases have been registered against him while he was in custody in the present 2 case. Therefore, these two cases cannot be read against him. He has further contended that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('the Act', for short) is a mandatory provision. Therefore, this Court should grant the benefit of bail to the accused-petitioner. On the other hand, Mr. Javed Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that the accused-petitioner keeps company with Tolaram, who is already involved in five criminal cases. Thus, he is a part of criminal gang. In case, the accused-petitioner were released, he is bound to go back to known criminals. One of the conditions under Section 12 of the Act for refusal of bail is that in case the release would allow the juvenile to go back to known criminal, then the juvenile delinquent should not be released. Therefore, the learned public prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail. Admittedly, the petitioner is keeping company with Tolaram against whom five cases are pending. Thus, he is keeping company with “known criminals”. Even if the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner is accepted, that too only for the sake of arguments, that two cases have been registered against the accused-petitioner after his arrest, even then, this contention does not come to his rescue. The intention of the legislature is to prevent a juvenile delinquent from going back to a criminal gang and to a criminal way of life. Undisputedly, Tolaram heads a criminal gang to which the present accused-petitioner belongs. Therefore, in case the petitioner were released on bail, 3 undoubtedly, he would go back to the same criminal gang to resume his criminal activities. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to give the benefit of bail to the accused-petitioner under Section 12 of the Act. Hence, the petition is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-