SUNIL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners (juvenile- through their natural guardian) as well as learned Public Prosecutor. The allegation against the petitioners is of offence under Sections 143, 460, 302 I.P.C. The bail application filed by the petitioners under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Udaipur was rejected vide order dated 4.11.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act No. 1, Udaipur and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 13.11.2019.

(2.) Being aggrieved of the orders dated 4.11.2019 and 13.11.2019 passed by the Courts below, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition before this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are below 18 years of age and they have falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that specific allegation for inflicting injury was levelled against accused Someshwar and Naveen and the petitioners were merely present at the time of occurrence. Challan of the case has already been presented and no investigation is pending. Further there is no evidence to show that if the juvenile-petitioners are released on bail, then their release is likely to bring them into association with any known criminal, or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that their release would defeat the ends of justice. It is argued that learned Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the petitioners are juvenile and entitled to get benefit of provisions of the Act of 2015. Section 12 of the Act of 2015 clearly provides that if the accused is juvenile, then he should be released on bail, but learned Courts below fully ignored the provisions of the Act of 2015. The petitioner are in custody since long time and no further detention of the petitioners is required for any purpose. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile.