Sunil Kumar, Deepak @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Rajasthan And 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 6.1.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu 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 accused-petitioner has contended that the co-accused Depender @ Minku and Pradeep Kumar who are major in age have

been released on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The petitioner is juvenile, his family background and conduct report has been received

from Superintendent, Government Observation and juvenile home, Jhunjhunu which is favourable to him. Counsel submits that on the basis of parity,

the juvenile may also be granted bail.

Learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner further 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

was 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.

The counsel for the juvenile-petitioner has also drawn attention of this court towards the report submitted by Superintendent, Government

Observations and Juvenile Home, Jhunjhunu wherein it has been stated that no other criminal case has been registered against the juvenile-petitioner/s.

Hence, it has been prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer stating that the role of juvenile is not identical to that of

accused persons who have been released on bail. He further submits that the recovery witnesses are yet to be examined.

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.

From the report received from the Probation Officer/Superintendent, Government Observation and Child Home, Jhunjhunu, it transpires that conduct

and behaviour of the juvenile-petitioner is good and his family background is also satisfactory and he is not having any criminal background.

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.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Jhunjhunu,

then the Juvenile-petitioner Sunil Kumar @ Deepak be released on bail.

The revision petition stands allowed.