1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Manmohan Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1160/2010) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Under Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2000. Date of Judgment: December 02, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Mohd. Iqbal Khan, for the petitioner. Mr.Javed Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Kota, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 04.10.2010, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kota (“the Board”, for short), wherein the learned Board had denied the benefit of bail to the petitioner, he has approached this Court. Mr. Mohd. Iqbal Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that initially a FIR, FIR No.83/2008, was registered for offences under Sections 302, 120-B IPC against some persons including the petitioner. This FIR related to an alleged murder of Shiv Shankar. However, after a thorough investigation, the Police submitted a 2 negative final report. Subsequently, another FIR, FIR No.272/2009, was registered for offences under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, during the investigation in the said FIR, the present petitioner was arrested. During the investigation he revealed the fact that he was also involved in the alleged murder of Shiv Shanker. Thus, the Police reopened the investigation in FIR No.83/2008, the first FIR mentioned above. The petitioner was arrested in the said case also. According to the learned counsel, the allegation in FIR No.83/2008 is that the petitioner along with his sister, Sunita and one Mahaveer conspired to kill Shiv Shankar. They carried out their plan and killed Shiv Shankar. The motive for killing Shiv Shankar was the alleged illicit relationship that had developed between Sunita and Mahaveer. Subsequently, even Sunita was killed. According to the learned counsel, Mahaveer had lodged the second FIR against the petitioner in order to protect his own skin. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the second FIR lodged against the present petitioner is a fabricated case against him. In order to buttress this contention, he has relied upon the testimony of the petitioner's father, Cheetarlal, given in the second case. On the other hand, Mr. Javed Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, has strenuously contended that the present petitioner is involved in two cases 3 both under Section 302 IPC. On the one hand, there is an allegation that he killed his own brother-in-law, Shiv Shankar, and on the other hand, there is an allegation that he killed his own sister, Sunita. The defence taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the second case the petitioner is being falsely implicated, cannot be accepted at this juncture. Moreover, the testimony of Cheetaral, who happens to be the petitioner's father, would naturally be in favour of the petitioner. For, the father would like to protect his own son. Therefore, even that evidence cannot be read in support of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Without expressing any opinion about the merits or demerits of the case, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2000. The orders dated 4.10.2010 and 23.10.2010 are upheld. Resultantly, this petition is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki