AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Garg, J
Defect pointed out by the Office is hereby waived.
Heard.
Issue notice.
Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Learned counsel Mr. Durgesh Khatri appeared on behalf of respondent NO.2, therefore, service is complete.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant (juvenile- through his natural guardian Rajmal) as well as learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent No.2.
The allegation against the appellant is of offence under Section 302/34 of IPC. The bail application filed by the appellant before learned Special Judge, Child Court, Banswara, has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.09.2023.
Being aggrieved of the order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Court below, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that similarly situated co-accused Smt. Devli has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court and the case of present appellant is similar. Counsel further submits that complainant has been examined and she declared hostile. It is argued that learned Court below has 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 Court below fully ignored the provisions of the Act of 2015. The appellant is in juvenile home and trial of the case is yet pending 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 court below declining the bail to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also submitted that compromise has arrived at between the parties and complainant has examined before the Court and she declared hostile.
[2023:RJ-JD:44243] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-2593/2023]
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, 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 criminal appeal is allowed and the order dated 22.09.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Child Court, Banswara, declining bail to the appellant is hereby set aside.
It is ordered that the juvenile accused-appellant Vijay Pal @ Vesta S/o Gautam, shall be released on bail in FIR No.66/2023 Police Station Bhungda, District Banswara upon furnishing a personal bond by his Natural guardian, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Banswara; with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of
[2023:RJ-JD:44243] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-2593/2023]
hearing, he 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.