RAKESH 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 (herein -after to be referred as, 'the Act') and Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the order dated 5th July, 2010 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kota in FIR No. 224/2010 police station Vigyan Nagar, Kota whereby the application for grant of bail moved on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected and that of the order dated 22nd July, 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota in Criminal Appeal No. 251/2010 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 on the basis of report submitted by the complainant, FIR No. 224/2010 for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC was registered against the accused -petitioner and others at police station Vigyan Nagar, Kota. The accused petitioner being a juvenile on his behalf his father submitted an application for bail. The learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, after hearing both sides, rejected the application moved under Section 12 of the Act on 5th July, 2010. The petitioner having felt aggrieved preferred an appeal, that too was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 22nd July, 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.