1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1181/2010) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Under Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Date of Judgment: November 12, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Hemant Gajraj, for the petitioner. Mr.N.R. Saran, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the order dated 6.4.2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.2.2010, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur, the petitioner has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.9.2008, the complainant, Bundu Khan, lodged a written report against the petitioner with regard to an incident alleged to have taken place on 21.9.2008. On the basis of the written report, the police registered a FIR, bearing FIR No.746/2008, for offences under Section 342 and 376 IPC. During the investigation, the police arrested the 2 accused-petitioner on 23.9.2008. Since then, he is in judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan against the petitioner for offences under Sections 342 and 376 IPC. Being juvenile, the petitioner submitted his bail application through his mother before the Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur. But vide order dated 8.2.2010, the Board dismissed the bail application. Against the order dated 8.2.2010. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('the Act', for short), before the learned Sessions Judge. However, vide order dated 6.4.2010, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Hemant Gajraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that under Section 12 of the Act, ordinarily, a bail should be granted to a person without considering the nature of the offence. According to him, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner is associated with any known criminal person or criminal gang. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that in case the petitioner were to be released, there is any physical or psychological danger to him, or that this release would defeat the ends of justice. In order to buttress his 3 contention that ordinarily a juvenile delinquent should be granted the benefit of bail, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan [2006 (1) RCC 337], Jeeturam Vs. State of Rajasthan [2005 (1) R.Cr.D. 372 (Raj.), Mitha Lal Vs State of Rajasthan [2006 (2) R.Cr.D. 312 (Raj.) and Mahendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan [2006 (1) R.Cr.D. 513 (Raj.). On the other hand, Mr. N.R. Saran, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that the allegations against the petitioner are that he had taken the prosecutrix, who is a minor girl of six years, into his room and had ravished her. He has read out the statement of the prosecutrix wherein she has described the offence. Moreover, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, while the petitioner happens to a member of majority community, the prosecutrix happens to be a girl of minority community. Therefore, he has contended that there is a grave danger to the physical security of the petitioner in case he were to be released. Moreover, the concept of justice has to be seen equally from the point of view of the victim. In case the petitioner is released, who has allegedly committed a heinous offence of rape upon a minor girl, the ends of justice would be defeated. Therefore, he has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 4 In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offence allegedly took place on 21.9.2008 i.e. two years ago. Therefore, the likelihood that the petitioner would be harmed is no longer there. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and the impugned order. It is not true that Section 12 of the Act is mandatory in nature. After all, Section 12 of the Act empowers the court to refuse to grant a bail under three conditions. Firstly, if being released on bail is likely to bring the offender into the association with any known criminal; Secondly, if it is likely to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and; thirdly, his released would defeat the ends of justice. Considering the fact that the offence has been committed by the petitioner allegedly against a girl belonging to the minority community, there are great chances that he may be physically harmed once he is released. For, an offence like rape is not easily forgotten, either by the victim, or by her family. Thus, the possibility of harm to the petitioner cannot be ruled out. 5 Moreover, the very concept of “justice” is not a one sided street. This Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that an offence like rape devastates the victim for the rest of her life. Considering the fact that the victim is a girl of six years, who was allegedly subjected to rape, the gravity of the offence is obvious. The courts have to be alive both to the plight of the victim, and to demand of the society to do justice in case of alleged rape with a minor girl. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki