1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 587/2007 Mahendra (juvenile) through his father & natural guardian Rameshwar Lal V/s State of Rajasthan Date of Order : 06/07/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Ramesh Purohit for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, P.P. BY THE COURT:- Issue notice for final disposal. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, public prosecutor is directed to accept notice. He accepts the notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has supplied copy of the revision petition to public prosecutor appearing for the State. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition is finally heard and decided at the admission stage. By the instant revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act of 2000 hereinafter), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.6.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Appeal No. 109/2007 whereby the appeal filed by the 2 petitioner juvenile under Section 52 of the Act of 2000 against the order dated 19.6.2007 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhilwara, has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on an FIR lodged by one Ladulal on 8.6.2007 with Police Station Baneda, the police registered a crime report being FIR No. 115/2007 for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 336 and 341 IPC against various persons named in the FIR which includes the name of the present petitioner. During pendency of the investigation in the said FIR, after five days of the occurrence, injured Unkar died and offence under Section 302 IPC was added. After usual investigation, the police led challan against the petitioner and other persons. The petitioner is about 14 years of age and thus a juvenile as defined under the Act of 2000. The petitioner was produced before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhilwara. An application was moved on behalf of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2000 seeking bail in the FIR No. 115/07. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application vide order dated 19.6.2007, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner through his guardian father which came to be dismissed by order impugned dated 26.6.2007. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 deals with the bail of 3 juvenile which reads as under:- 12.“Bail of juvenile.- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is 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 but he shall not be so released if there appear 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 the ends of justice. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub- section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.” From the plain language of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 it is clear that a delinquent juvenile be ordinarily released on bail irrespective of the nature of offence 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 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. In the instant case, neither the Principal Magistrate, 4 Juvenile Justice Board nor the appellate Court found that if the delinquent juvenile is released on bail then there are reasonable grounds for believing that he will come in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. No specific act has been assigned to the petitioner in the FIR. The question of grant of bail to the juvenile came to be considered by me in Jeeturam through his father natural guardian Fusaram S/o Mangaram Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B.Criminal Misc. Revision No.767/04 decided on 04.01.2005 2005 (1) RDD 340 (Raj) and in Imtiyaz Vs. State of Rajasthan 2006 (1) R.Cr.D. 301 (Raj.). Keeping in view the decisions of this Court, in my view, the instant revision petition deserves to be allowed. For the reasons aforesaid, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 19.6.2007 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board and the order dated 26.6.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Bhilwara refusing to release the petitioner on bail, are hereby set aside and it is directed that petitioner Mahendra S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal be released on bail, provided his father, the natural guardian, furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall produce the juvenile before the said Board or any other Court 5 during pendency of the inquiry in the case and the natural guardian shall keep proper look after of the juvenile delinquent and keep him away from the company of known criminals. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp