Allowed

Ashok Kumar v. State

Rajasthan HC11 Oct 2018CRLR/1028/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the dismissal of a bail application for a juvenile. The High Court held that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, bail is mandatory unless specific risks exist. Finding no such risks on record, the court allowed the revision and directed the release of the juvenile on bail.

What did the court decide?

The junior's plea to release him on bail with bail of Rs.25,000/- and surety bond in the like amount, contingent on producing him before the Juvenile Justice Board.

Ashok Kumar Vs State — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1028/2018

¶3

Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Rakesh Ram, Aged About 42 Years, Through His Natural Guardian Mother Santosh, Mothers Age 42 Years, B/c Bazigar, R/o Kolayat, Dist. Bikaner (Lodged At Juvenile Care Home, Bikaner)

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S. Shrimali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, P.P. Mr. D.K. Gaur, for complainant

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶10

Order

¶11

11/10/2018

¶12

This criminal revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act of 2015' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Bikaner and Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bikaner (for short 'the appellate court' hereinafter), whereby the appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the juvenile through his natural guardian against the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner (for short' the trial court' hereinafter) on an application under section 12 of the Act of 2015, whereby the prayer for releasing the juvenile on bail was dismissed by the trial court.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLR-1028/2018]

¶16

Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 reads as under:

¶17

“12. (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or 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 officer or under the care of any fit person:

¶18

Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision”

¶19

From perusal of section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, 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 section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, which may persuade the Court not to release the juvenile on bail. But in this

¶20

(3 of 3) [CRLR-1028/2018]

¶21

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.

¶22

In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 03.08.2018 and 31.07.2018 are set aside and it is directed that petitioner – Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Rakesh Ram shall be released on bail provided his natural guardian- Mother Santosh 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, Bikaner with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall produce the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner or any other Court till the enquiry or trial is concluded.

¶23

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶24

Taruna

Ashok Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar 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

Anil Negi Vs State and Anr.

Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Santosh Shetty @ Anna @ Nikolas Madan Vs State and Anr.

Mangi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

State Vs Purshotam Lal and Anr.

Mohd. Ajhar Vs State