RAHUL @ LALLU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision petition filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here -in -after to be referred as, 'the Act'), challenge has been made to the order dated 22nd March, 2010 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur in FIR No. 40/2010 police station Weir, Bharatpur whereby the application for grant of bail moved on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected and that of the order dated 25th March, 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2010 by which the appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts, for the disposal of the present petition, are that the uncle of the prosecutrix Mst. Ragini lodged a written report at Police Station Weir, District Bharatpur. On the basis of that report FIR No. 40/2010 was registered at police station Weir under Sections 363 and 376 IPC. The petitioner being a juvenile on his behalf his father submitted an application for bail under Section 12 of the Act before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur who after hearing both sides, rejected the application on 22nd March, 2010. The petitioner having felt aggrieved preferred a criminal appeal, that too was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 25th March, 2010. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) IT has been the contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material available on record to justify declining bail to the petitioner who was juvenile at the time of commission of the offence. It is also contended that before bail to a juvenile is declined, it should fulfill the requirement of Section 12 of the Act. It is also contended that merely by making a mention in the impugned order that the petitioner is likely to come in contact with known criminals is not enough unless there is some material available on record to justify the same. It is further contended that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline the bail. It is further contended that the courts below without taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of the Act, in a cursory manner declined bail to the petitioner.