Om Prakash, Prakash @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for State.

This revision petition has been preferred against the order impugned dated 27.4.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Alwar whereby the appeal

filed by the juvenile-petitioner under Sec.101 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to be as “Act of

2015â€​), has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner submits that FIR No.82/2018 was registered at Police Station Khairthal, District Alwar for the offences

under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 332, 435, 336,353, 395, 427 of IPC and Section 3, 5 of PDPP Act and Section 3 of Arms Act. Co-accused

persons Rajendra, Dinesh, Buddh, Girvar and Manish have already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Petitioner Om

Prakash @ Prakash is juvenile. The alleged occurrence pertains to the agitation which took place on 2.4.2018 during “Bharat Bandâ€. Accused-

petitioner has been wrongly identified in the crowd of 3000-4000 persons.Â

Learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner also submits that the juvenile-petitioner who is in conflict with law, has been detained in observation home

since long. There is no criminal antecedents of the juvenile-petitioner. The juvenile-petitioner was residing with his family and his father/mother is

taking care of the juvenile-petitioner. The counsel for the juvenile-petitioner prays that the custody of the juvenile-petitioner may be handed over to his

father/mother. He has further contended that the gravity and nature of the offence is not relevant while deciding the bail application as per the

provisions contained in Sec.12 of the Act of 2015.

The counsel for the juvenile-petitioner has further contended that the appeal in this matter has been rejected on the ground that the possibility of the

juvenile-petitioner of coming into association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, cannot be ruled out on his

coming into contact with other co-accused persons. The counsel also contends that this apprehension expressed by learned Appellate Court is without

any basis.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer made above.

From the perusal of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, it is established legal position that a delinquent juvenile ordinarily has to be released on bail

irrespective of nature of offence alleged to have been committed by him unless it is shown by evidence that if he is released on bail, there appears

reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the delinquent juvehile is likely to being him into association with any known criminals or expose

him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The nature of offence and the merits of the case do

not have any relevance. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material while opposing the bail and make out any of the grounds provided in

the section, which may persuade the court not to release the juvenile on bail. But in this case, there is nothing on record to show that the release of the

juvenile-petitioner is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose to moral physical or psychological danger or that his release

would defeat the ends of justice.

In view of whatever is stated above, the revision petition deserves to be allowed. It is directed that if the father/mother of the juvenile-petitioner

furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar then

the Juvenile-petitioner Om Prakash @ Prakash be released on bail.

The revision petition stands allowed.