NAVIN SHARMA 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 20th May, 2010 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur in FIR No. 189/2010 police station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur whereby the application for grant of bail moved on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected and that of the order dated 8th June, 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No. 72/2010 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 24.3.2010 complainant Savita daughter of Banay Singh submitted a written report in the police station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 189/2010 was registered under Sections 366A, 376(2)(g) and 120B IPC. The petitioner being a juvenile on his behalf his father submitted an application for bail under Section 12 of the Act. The learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur after hearing both sides, rejected the application on 20th May, 2010. The petitioner having felt aggrieved preferred an appeal, that too was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 8th June, 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.