Shahid @ Sohil @ Purri vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

According to the brief facts of the case, the juvenile in conflict with law Shahid alias Sohil son of Ashu, was detained in FIR No. 141/2020,

registered with Police Station Kaman District Bharatpur, for the offences under Sections 376, 120B of IPC and 7/8 of POCSO Act. The FIR was

lodged by complainant with the facts that his daughter (victim), who was 15 years of age, on 19.03.2020, the juvenile in conflict with law along with

other accused persons, abducted her at gunpoint and the present juvenile in conflict with law committed rape upon her while other accused persons

stood guard with a katta and threatened that if anybody intervened, they will fire from the katta. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed

against juvenile in conflict with law and he is detained in Juvenile Observation Home, Bharatpur.

An application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was filed, which came to be rejected by the

Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur by order dated 07.05.2020. Against this order, appeal was filed before Special Court for POCSO Act Cases No.1,

Bharatpur under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which also came to be rejected by order dated 20.05.2020. Against that order, present

revision petition has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, on the ground that the juvenile has not committed any offence but

he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is delay in lodging of the report. Medical report does not support the allegation of rape. Conduct of

petitioner has been reported as good and there is no adverse report from the Probation Officer. Under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, bail is

mandatory unless the court comes to the conclusion on the basis of material before it that if benefit of bail is granted to the petitioner, it would not be in

the interest of justice and there is every possibility of petitioner coming in contact with known or unkown persons of criminal nature, but the courts

below have declined bail to the juvenile on the ground of seriousness and gravity of the offence but seriousness of offence is not relevant factor for

the grant of bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Grant of bail is mandatory unless certain specified circumstances are proved on the

basis of material available before the court. Learned counsel relied upon following decisions :-

(i) Jahid Husain @ Jahid v. State of Rajasthan [SB Cri. Revision No.742/2016] decided on 04.07.2016.

(ii) Gagan @ Gagan Singhal v. State of Rajasthan [SB Cri. Revision No. 365/2018] decided on 08.03.2018.

(iii) Bhupendra alias Golu v. State of Rajasthan & Another [SB Cri. Revision No. 1046/2018] decided on 30.11.2018.

(iv) Dharmendra @ Chhotu v. The State of Rajasthan & Another [SB Cri. Revision No. 1041/2018] decided on 30.11.2018.

Section 12 provides that bail is mandatory to a juvenile but it may be declined if there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is

likely to bring the person into association with any known criminal or expose the juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's

release would defeat the ends of justice and Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. As per

the order passed in appeal under Section 101 of Juvenile Justice Act, the benefit of bail has been declined on the ground that if the juvenile is released

on bail, there is possibility that he will come into association of known or unknown criminals and there will be adverse effect on his physical and mental

development.

In the light of above arguments/submissions and legal provisions, in the present matter the allegation against the juvenile in conflict with law is that

he committed rape upon minor victim, who was 15 years of age and while committing the crime, he was accompanied by two other accused persons

and the victim was abducted at gunpoint. As per the report of the Probation Officer, the cause of committing this offence has been pointed out as the

effect of same age group adverse company of the juvenile in conflict with law. Hence it comes out that such a grievous offence was committed as a

outcome of bad company of the juvenile in conflict with law. Further the child was accompanied by other accused persons and the offence was jointly

committed. These circumstances point to the fact that if juvenile is released on bail, there is every possibility that he will come into the company of

known or unknown criminals and looking to the nature of offence, there is apprehension that it will have adverse effect on moral, physical and

psychological development and considering the circumstances in which this offence was committed, his release on bail would defeat the ends of

justice.

In view of the above, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.