(i) S.B. CRIMINAL Revision Pet. No. 697/09. (Adam Vs. State of Raj.) (ii) S.B. CRIMINAL Revision Pet. No. 706/09. (Taju Vs. State of Raj.) (iii) S.B. CRIMINAL Revision Pet. No. 636/09. (Mustaq Ali Vs. State of Raj.) Date of Order: 30/04/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE Reportable Mr Ravi Kashliwal, Mr Peush Nag and Mr Chain Singh Rathore, for the petitioner(s). Mr Javed Choudhary, Public Prosecutor, for State. As these three revision petitions arise out of the same First Information Report, having same sets of facts and grounds of challenge, they are being decided by a common order. 2. Applications for grant of bail was filed by these juvenile petitioners in F.I.R., No. 62/09 registered at Police Station Kishanganj, Ajmer for the offence under Section 376 IPC. All the three petitioners have been named in the report and there are specific allegations against each of them. The allegations levelled in the report read as under: "मुझे मुसताक बुलाकर पैदल सेन्ट ःटीफन ःकूल के पास जंगल में पानी की टंकी के पास ले गया व मुझे धमका कर वहां जबरदःती मेरे साथ बुरा काम िकया मै िचãलाने लगी तो मेरे मुंह पर हाथ रख िदया उसके बाद करीब 11 बजे िदन मुःताक मुझे ःटीफन ःकूल के पास एक कमरे में ले गया वहां सागर नाम के लड़के के मकान पर मेरे साथ मुसताक के अलावा चार लड़के और थे जो आपस में के उस नाम सागर, आदम, ताजू व एक लड़का और था नाम भूल गई ने मेरे साथ दो िदन तक िदन में दो दो बार गलत काम िकया व जबरन मुझे कमरे में बंद रखा |" 3. Further, it is alleged that Mustaq had come again later to call the prosecutrix and at that time she made the complaint to her father. The accused petitioners, after their arrest, moved applications for bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate dismissed the bail application by his order dated 1.4.2009, after making following observations: "केस डायरी का अवलोकन करने से भी यही ूकट होता है िक बाल अपचािरगण ने अन्य मुलिजमान के साथ िमलकर मुसमात मीना के साथ जबरन उसे कमरे में ले जाकर उसके साथ गलत काम िकया, िजससे ऐसा ूतीत होता है िक बाल अपचािरगण के अन्य ज्ञात अपरािधयों के सहयोग में आने िक पूणर् आशंका है तथा यिद ऐसे अपराध में बाल अपचािरगण को जमानत का लाभ िदया जाता है तो इससे न्याय के उƧेँयों का भी हनन होगा|" 4. The accused petitioners then filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge but the same was also dismissed on 10th April, 2009 by observing as under: "मैंने अपने 26.3.09 के आदेश में भी िलखा था िक सामूिहक बलात्संग करने वाले अपचािरयों को जमानत का लाभ िदया गया तो अिभयोक्ऽी के माता-िपता उनकी जान भी ले सकते है | यह बाल अपचािरयों के ःवय के िहत में है िक वे जमानत पर बाहर आने की बजाय जेल में सुरि¢त बैठे रहें | ऐसे अपचािरयों को जमानत का लाभ िदये जाने से न केवल दसरे अपराध घिटत होंगे ू , वरन जन सामान्य की न्याय åयवःथा में आःथा भी धूिमल होगी | मेरा यह मानना है िक वतर्मान ूकरण के अपचािरयों के मामले में धारा 12 जे. जे. एक्ट, 2000 के ूावधान लागू होते है तथा अपचािरयों को जमानत का लाभ िदये जाने से ends of the justice will be defeated.” 5. The learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that all the accused persons are juvenile and as such they may be released on bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2000. They have also submitted that there is delay in lodging of the First Information Report. They have further submitted that the prosecutrix is habitual of sexual intercourse. However, the main emphasis of the argument of the learned counsels for the petitioners is that as the petitioners are juvenile, they be released on bail. In support of their submissions, reliance has been placed on the cases of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2003 Cr.L.J., 2284, Prakash Vs. State of Raj., 2006 (1) Cr.L.R., (Raj.) 281 and Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Raj., 2008(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1489. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the revision petitions and submitted that the prayer of the petitioners for bail be rejected. He has submitted that as per the medical evidence on record, the age of the accused petitioner Adam is between 16-18 years, Taju is between 16-18 years, and that of Mustak Ali is between 13-15 years of age. He has also submitted that date of birth of the prosecutrix is 2nd April, 1994 and as per the medical report her age is 15-17 years. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that in the statements recorded under Sec.164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has categorically made allegations against all the accused petitioners. In the last, he has submitted that ends of justice would be met if the bail applications of all the accused petitioners are rejected in the instant case. 7. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully perused the orders passed by both the courts below. 8. In my view the facts and circumstances of the present case, as revealed from the material on record, are certainly glaring and the allegations against the accused petitioners are of serious nature. The learned Magistrate has given very specific reasoning while rejecting the bail application of the accused petitioners, so also the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing their appeals and, therefore, the orders passed by both the courts below does not warrant any interference. Needless to say that in bail matters the orders passed by different courts cannot be taken to be as binding precedents because each matter depends on its own merits and facts and circumstances of that particular case. It has been so laid down in the case of Mohanlal versus State, reported in 2005 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1320. 9. This Court is conscious with regard to bail matters of juveniles under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and also the provisions made thereunder. Since the legislature itself has, in its wisdom, laid down under Sec.12 of the Act that a juvenile could not be released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring 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. 10. In the instant case, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the serious allegations levelled against the petitioners and the observations made by the learned courts below, I am of the considered opinion that if the accused petitioners are released on bail, then it would not serve the ends of justice. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, these revision petitions are dismissed at this stage. However, the learned trial Court is directed to record the statements of prosecutrix, as first witness, as and when the trial commences. (RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE),J. Gandhi/-P.A. Item no. 1