Dismissed

Neelam Joshi v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC8 Nov 2017CRLMA/265/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A plea to recall a bail order under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act is dismissed. The court holds that Section 12 does not distinguish bail conditions between juveniles treated as adults and those who are not, whereas the revisional court is obligated to hear the complainant, which it has done.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous application for recalling the bail order is dismissed.

Neelam Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 265 / 2017 IN

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.517/2017

¶4

Neelam Joshi W/o Late Shri Mukesh Joshi, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Plot No.14, Behind Roadways Workshop Ghughara, Jaipur Road, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶8

Hemraj S/o Shri Bhag Chand Gurjar B/c Gurjar, Thorugh His Natural Guardian and Mother Smt. Geeta W/o Shri Bhagchand, R/o Behind Roadways Workshop, Opposite R.T.O. Ghooghra, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Aged About 17 Years, R/o Behind Roadways Workshop, Opposite R.T.O. Ghooghra, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma

¶11

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP

¶12

Mr. Peus Nag

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶14

Judgment / Order

¶15

08/11/2017

¶16

Petitioner has moved an application for recalling the order dated 12.05.2017b passed by the Hon’ble Court.

¶17

It is contended that the order was passed by the without affording opportunity of hearing to the complainant. It is also contended that the objection that the juvenile would be treated as an adult or not was raised by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶18

It is contended that a report was made that the juvenile is mature to face the trial as an adult.

¶19

Counsel for the juvenile has argued that the report that the juvenile is mature to face the trial as an adult was issued by Court on 07.10.2017 and the date when the order was passed, no such

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

[CRLMA-265/2017]

¶22

report was available rather the report of psychiatrists was produced before the Court that the mental status of the juvenile is of his actual age.

¶23

I have considered the contentions.

¶24

As per the Juvenile Justice Act, the revisional Court is required to hear the complainant. This Court has now heard the complainant and is considering the case whether the juvenile is entitled to bail or not.

¶25

The juvenile, as per the order passed under Sub-section 3 of Section 18 of the Act is mature enough to face the trial as an adult. The contention of counsel for the complainant is that since the juvenile will now be treated as an adult, the sentence would be different than that which would be passed against a juvenile.

¶26

Counsel for the complainant was not in a position to place before the Court any provision which differentiates between a juvenile and a juvenile who is treated as an adult in matters pertains to the grant of bail under Section 12 of the Act.

¶27

There is absolutely no difference and Section 12 does not differentiate between a juvenile and a juvenile who is treated as as an adult and the conditions for grant of bail are same for both the category of juvenile, I am therefore, not inclined to modify the order and entertain the present application.

¶28

The criminal misc. application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶29

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

¶30

Arti/113

Neelam Joshi v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Joshi v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Executive Engineer, G M C and or Vs Lakhu and Anr.

G.M.Prscentral Bank of India Vs P.O.Cgit, Jaipur and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kailash Chand and Ors.

Rasik Bhai Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sandeep Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Sukhvinder @ Sukhveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp