CHUNNA RAM @ CHUNNILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 2.2.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner rejecting the appeal of the accused Chunna Ram @ Chunnilal aged about 16 years 2 months, a juvenile, against the order of juvenile justice Board, Bikaner dated 1.2.2011 refusing bail under Sec. 12 of the juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The reasons assigned by the Board is that the release of the accused Chunna Ram, who was an accused of the offence under Sec. 376 I.P.C., would bring him in contact with known criminals and he would be in moral, physical and psychological danger and, therefore, he may he kept in reform home. While rejecting the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner has held that since the offence is of heinous nature and the accused repeatedly committed rape on the prosecutrix aged 11th years only, therefore, ends of justice would be defeated if he is enlarged on bail.

(2.) Being aggrieved by these two orders, the accused Chunna Ram @ Chunnilal though this father Heera Lal Prajapat is before this Court in the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sheetal Khumbht submitted that the grant of bail to a juvenile is a rule as per Sec. 12 of the Act and unless the case falls within three exceptions enumerated under Sec. 12 of the Act, the bail cannot he normally refused to a juvenile irrespective of the nature of the crime. He submitted that the three exceptions are (i) If there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, (ii) that the release is likely to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger; and (iii) that the release would defeat the ends of justice. He urged that merely repetition of these words in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below is not sufficient, as no facts or circumstances have been narrated, which satisfy these grounds for applying the exception in Sec. 12(1) of the Act while refusing bail to a juvenile. He submitted that there is no criminal background of parents of the accused juvenile and also the accused has been falsely implicated in the said case of rape, which was in fact committed by another person Chatar Nath, who was serving in a mobile tower, in the room of which the said act is purported to be committed and when the petitioner reached that place and saw them in compromising position, he was also implicated in the said case.