Allowed

Babu Lal @ Sunil v. State

Rajasthan HC27 Feb 2017CRLR/205/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition was allowed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The court set aside orders denying bail to a juvenile petitioner under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, directing his release on bail with a personal and surety bond.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; petitioner directed to be released on bail furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and a surety bond of like amount.

Babu Lal @ Sunil Vs State — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B.Criminal Revision No. 205 / 2017

¶3

Babu Lal @ Sunil S/o Shyoram Through Guardian Elder Brother Vijay Jitarwal S/o Shyoram, Aged About 17 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident of Hingoniya Dungari, Police Station Jobner, District Jaipur (Presently Confined in Ovservation Home, Nagaur).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.S. Jakhaniya

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

27/02/2017

¶13

This criminal revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act of 2000' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 09.02.2017 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur (for short 'the appellate court' hereinafter), whereby the criminal appeal No.11/2017 filed by the juvenile through his guardian under section 52 of the Act of 2000 against the order dated 7.1.2017 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur (for short' the trial court' hereinafter) on an application under section 12 of the Act of 2000, whereby the prayer for releasing the juvenile on bail has been dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CRLR-205/2017]

¶17

argued that there is no iota of evidence available against the petitioner and the prosecution witnesses namely PW-1 Gajanand, who is the complainant and PW-2 Pradeep, who named the petitioner in police statements have not supported the prosecution story and have specifically stated that the petitioner was not involved in the commission of crime. It is also contended that both the courts below have not given any finding to the effect that if the petitioner juvenile is released on bail, there is all possibility that he may come in contact with the criminals or that may defeat the ends of justice.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition, however in the factual report submitted by the Public Prosecutor, it is mentioned that no other criminal case is pending against the petitioner and he is belonging to agriculturist family, which has no criminal background.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor and perused the orders passed by the courts below as well as the report of the Probation Officer dated 17.2.2017 submitted before this Court.

¶20

Section 12(1) of the Act of 2000 reads as under:

¶21

“When any person accused of a bailable or nonbailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a Probation

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[CRLR-205/2017]

¶24

Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person but he shall not be so released if there appear 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 the ends of justice.”

¶25

From perusal of section 12(1) of the Act of 2000, it is clear 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 appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the delinquent juvenile 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 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 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.

¶26

It is also noticed that in the report dated 17.2.2017, the Probation Officer has recommended that no other criminal case is pending against the petitioner-juvenile.

¶27

(4 of 4)

¶28

[CRLR-205/2017]

¶29

It has also been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused has already been released on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶30

In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 07.01.2017 and 09.02.2017 passed by the courts below are set aside and it is directed that petitioner – Babu Lal @ Sunil son of Shyoram, by caste Jat, resident of Hingoniya Dungari, Police Station Jobner, District Jaipur be released on bail provided his natural guardian-brother Vijay Jitarwal furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall produce the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur or any other Court till the enquiry or trial is concluded.

¶31

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶32

Gaurav

Babu Lal @ Sunil v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Lal @ Sunil v. State

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

Sukhdev Singh and Anr. Vs State

Karan Singh Rathore Vs State

Daulat Ram Vs State and Anr.

Devi Lal Vs State and Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State and Anr.

Mohd. Firoj Vs Saira Bano and Ors.