S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 797/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Sri Ram @ Shiva Versus The State of Rajasthan S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 797/2010 Date of Judgment : 29.11.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr. S.G. Ojha for the petitioner Mr. Anil Upadhyay – Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT By this revision petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 26.10.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.10.2010 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Churu in FIR No. 178/2010 under Section 302, 201 IPC registered at Police Station Sujangarh, District Churu. The brief facts of the case as per the case diary are that a FIR was lodged by complainant Smt. Mohani Devi Page 1 of 5 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 797/2010 regarding the murder of her son Banwari. During the course of investigation, present petitioner Sri Ram was detained in the above FIR and as per the school record, his date of birth was found to be 16.01.1995. On the basis of the above school certificate, he was found to be juvenile, therefore, an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was filed on behalf of petitioner Sri Ram for grant of bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Churu. The application was rejected after hearing both the sides by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Churu vide order dated 20.10.2010 on the ground that present case is of henious nature pending against the petitioner. Petitioner then preferred appeal under Section 52 of the Act before the District and Sessions Judge, Churu, who by order dated 26.10.2010 dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of rejection of bail for Sri Ram. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline the bail to juvenile. He further contended that the courts below without taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of the Act, in a cursory manner declined bail to the petitioner. He further contended that the orders of the courts Page 2 of 5 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 797/2010 below are not based on definite facts and they are based on surmises and conjectures. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the order of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and also perused the provisions of the Act. It appears that for protection of juveniles, Special Act has been enacted. Section 12 of the Act indicates that if a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution. In regard to gravity and nature of the offence is concerned, this court in the case of Bhanwar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2007(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 254, in para 3 has observed that the language of Section 12 of the Act using the word “shall”, is mandatory and it provides non-obstante clause by using the expression “notwithstanding anything contained in Page 3 of 5 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 797/2010 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force”, which 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 the bail can be denied only in the case where 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 view of the provisions contained in the Act, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether the bail was rightly declined to the accused-petitioner under Section 12 of the Act and the appeal preferred against the order declining bail has rightly been rejected. After carefully examining the provisions of the Act, I do not find that in both the impugned orders no exceptional circumstance as indicated in Section 12 of the Act to decline bail to the juvenile is made out. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned appellate court have not properly appreciated the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the Act and other provisions in relation to the juvenile and merely on Page 4 of 5 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 797/2010 the basis of apprehension the bail has been declined. In my opinion, the Act being a beneficiary and social oriented legislation should be given full effect by all concern whenever the matter relating to juvenile comes to consideration before them. The net result of the above discussion is that the revision petition is allowed, the order passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board as well as the order passed by the learned appellate court, i.e. Sessions Judge, Churu declining bail to the accused-petitioner are hereby set aside. It is directed that the accused-petitioner Sri Ram @ Shiva S/o Shanker Lal shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (father) in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Churu with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing he shall appear before the said court or any other court during pendency of inquiry in the case and that the guardian shall keep proper look after of the delinquent child and keep him away from the company of known criminals. [KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI],J. Pramod Page 5 of 5