Juvenile a S/O Bharatlal Vs the State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:50261]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2284/2025

Juvenile A S/o Bharatlal, Aged About 16 Years, Resident Of Ukhlana Tehsil Uniyara District Tonk Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Bharatlal S/o Manphool Age 50 Years Resident Of Ukhlana, Tehsil Uniyara, District, Tonk (At Present Cofined In Children Home, Sawai Madhopur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain with Mr. Durgesh Kumar Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

10/12/2025

¶13

Instant revision petition is preferred on behalf of CCL in a matter arising out of FIR No. 291/2025 registered at P.S. Choth ka Barwada, Sawai Madhopur, wherein bail application under Section 12 of JJ Act was dismissed by JJB, Sawai Madhopur on 26.11.2025 and subsequent appeal No.118/2025 was dismissed on 28.11..2025 by learned District and Sessions Judge, Children Court, Sawai Madhopur. The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR are under Sections 318(4) 319(2), 336(2), 340(2), 303(2), 61(2) of BNS and Section 13 of RPGO and Section 66-D of IT Act.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

[2025:RJ-JP:50261]

[CRLR-2284/2025]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in the instant matter. He further submitted that co-accused 'B' has been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.12.2025. The case of the present petitioner is on similar footing. He contended that the appellate authority has erred in rejecting the bail application by ignoring the statutory mandate of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and failed to observe the guiding principles. The petitioner is confined since 20.11.2025, therefore, the revision petition of the petitioner may be allowed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶19

Section 12 of the JJ Act mandates that the bail is the rule and refusal is exception unless one or more of the following statutory exceptions are satisfied:-

¶20

(i) Possibility of association with known criminals,

¶21

(ii) exposure to moral, physical or physiological danger,

¶22

(iii) likelihood of defeating the ends of justice,

¶23

In the instant case, there is no substantive material on record to indicate that the release of the juvenile petitioner would bring him into association with known criminals or his release would expose him to any moral, physical or physiological threat and defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, in view of the above, the revision petition is allowed.

¶24

Therefore, the impugned orders dated 26.11.2025 and 28.11..2025 passed by both the Courts below are quashed and set aside. It is ordered that if guardian of CCL (juvenile) “A” submits an undertaking in form of supurdginama (personal bond) of

[2025:RJ-JP:50261]

[CRLR-2284/2025]

(3 of 3)

₹50,000/- with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each with condition that he will produce petitioner (CCL) in the said inquiry before concerned Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board or any other court (if matter is transferred/assigned) on each fixed date of hearing and in case the CCL is released on bail and custody is given to him, he will not create any situation which will bring the delinquent CCL into association with any known or unknown criminal or expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger or any situation and also the delinquent CCL may not repeat the offence of any nature and he will work for improvement of the delinquent CCL. Further, following conditions are also imposed-

¶29

(i) On monthly basis, guardian will ensure that petitioner-CCL be taken to psychological assistance available in the district; if same is not available in the district then on quarterly basis at the place where same is available

¶30

(ii) Petitioner-CCL will not influence any of the evidence.

¶31

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶32

(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶33

Chandan/69

Juvenile a S/O Bharatlal v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile a S/O Bharatlal v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aas Mohammad S/O Malkhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Gabbar S/O Sh. Hansraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Parmanand Meena S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena Vs Prakash Saini S/O Bahnwar Lal Saini

Hassan Abbas S/O Shri Piru Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Tularam S/O Pappu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishan @ Charbaal Aala @ Futya @ Ramkishan @ Krishan Vs State of Rajasthan