High Court set aside the Juvenile Justice Board's and Appellate Court's rejection of bail, releasing the juvenile petitioner after finding no exceptional circumstances warranting denial of bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Petitioner released on bail via personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JP:2164]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 34/2024
Juvenile X S/o Late Shri Raju, Aged About 18 Years, R/o House No. B-48, New Mount Road, Near Fateh Ram Ki Tiba, Valmiki Basti, Brahmpuri, Police Station Nahargarh Road, Jaipur North (Presently Confined In Observation Home Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Suresh Gurjar |
|---|---|
| Mr. Mahendra Kumar Saini | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Suresh Kumar, PP |
| Ms. Chhavi Chaturvedi |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
12/01/2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile) through his natural guardian, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
The allegation against the petitioner is for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 307 of I.P.C. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before learned Juvenile Justice Board No.2, Jaipur was rejected vide order dated 22.12.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Juvenile Court (Sessions Judge) Jaipur Metropolitan-II (Winter Vacation Court) and
[2024:RJ-JP:2164]
[CRLR-34/2024]
(2 of 4)
the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 29.12.2023.
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 22.12.2023 and 29.12.2023 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been involved under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 307 of I.P.C. He further submits that the injury caused to the injured is found to be not dangerous to life. The learned trial court vide order dated 22.09.2023 has enlarged the co-accused Dhruv Chedwal on bail. The case of the juvenile is not identical to the co-accused Dhruv Chedwal. The parties have entered to settle their dispute, more so the trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the revision petition may be allowed.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 defend the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the petitioner as also the judgment passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that petitioner is having criminal antecedents and is not under control of his parents. The learned trial court has recorded the reasons at para No.8 of the impugned order which is not entitled the petitioner to enlarge on bail, therefore, revision petition of the petitioner may be dismissed.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of
[2024:RJ-JP:2164]
[CRLR-34/2024]
(3 of 4)
the Act of 2015, more so considered the fact that co-accused Dhruv Chedwal has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 22.09.2023 and learned trial court has recorded the observation that the injuries caused to injured Tikamchand are found to be dangerous to life and simple in nature.
In this context, this Court also scanned through the record and perused the orders passed by the courts below.
I do not find that there are chances that petitioner would come into contact with the criminals.
Having carefully examined provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act vis-a-vis the orders passed by the courts below, this Court does 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 revision petition is allowed and the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board No.2, Jaipur as well as order dated 29.12.2023 passed by learned Juvenile Court (Sessions Judge) Jaipur Metropolitan-II (Winter Vacation Court), declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Juvenile X S/o Late Shri Raju shall be released on bail in F.I.R. No.164/2023 registered at Police Station Nahargarh (Jaipur City (North), District Jaipur City (North) upon furnishing personal bond by his natural guardian in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board No.2, Jaipur with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall appear before the said
(4 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JP:2164]
[CRLR-34/2024]
court or any other court, during pendency of the investigation/trial in the case and that his guardian shall properly look after the delinquent child and secure him away from the company of known criminals.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the juvenile petitioner despite the rejection by lower courts.
Whether exceptional circumstances exist to deny bail to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Juvenile X S/o Late Shri Raju
State Of Rajasthan
Tikam Chand S/o Phool Chand
Praveer Bhatnagar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
