Harendra Chotiya vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the appellant (juvenile- through his natural guardian father-Ramchandra S/o Pema Ram) as well as learned Public

Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

The allegation against the appellant is of offence under Sections 363, 376, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The second bail application filed

by the appellant under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children). Act, 2015 before the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases,

Jodhpur was rejected vide order dated 21.05.2019.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence to show that if the juvenile-appellant is released on bail, then his release is likely to

bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the

ends of justice. It is argued that learned Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the appellant is juvenile and entitled to get benefit of

provisions of the Act of 2015. Section 12 of the Act of 2015 clearly provides that if the accused is juvenile, then he should be released on bail, but

learned Courts below fully ignored the provisions of the Act of 2015. The appellant is in custody since long time and no further detention of the

appellant is required for any purpose. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a

ground to decline bail to a juvenile.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned order passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur in declining the

bail to the appellant.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2015.

The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 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 bail can be denied only in the case where there appears 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 ends of justice.

In this context, I have also scanned through and perused the order passed by the court below.

Having carefully examined provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act vis-a-vis the order passed by the court below and the statement of the prosecutrix, I

do not find that any of the exceptional circumstances, to decline bail to a juvenile, as indicated in Section 12 of the Act of 2015, is made out.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 21.05.2019 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur

declining bail to the appellant is hereby set aside.

It is ordered that the juvenile accused-appellant Harendra Chotiya S/o Ramchandra shall be released on bail in FIR No.128/2018, P.S. Borunda upon

furnishing personal bond by his natural guardian father -Ramchandra S/o Pema Ram in the sum of Rs.80,000/- each along with a surety in the like

amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, appellant

shall appear before the said court or any other court, during pendency of the investigation/trial in the case and that his guardian shall keep proper look

after of the delinquent child and secure him away from the company of known criminals.