DHAPIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2011, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jalore, whereby the learned Board has denied the benefit of Sec. 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act 2000 ('the Act', for short) to the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 14.03.2011.

(2.) Mr. V.N. Kalla, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that Binja Ram (PW2 1), the complainant, has alleged that the petitioner had stolen Rs. 1,500.00 from his house. Subsequently, he has falsely implicated the petitioner and has alleged that she had killed his son by throwing him into a well. According to the counsel, it is a case of false implication. While reading the complainant's testimony, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court and has argued that the basic tenor of the testimony deals more with the theft of Rs. 1,500.00, rather than the alleged murder of the child. Secondly, even other eye-witness, namely Mangla Ram (PW-2), has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he did not see the petitioner throwing the child into the well. Lastly, according to the learned counsel, Sec. 12 of the Act is a mandatory provision. Hence, the benefit of bail should be granted by this Court.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, the learned Public Prosecutor, has strenuously contended that both Binja Ram (PW-1) and Mangla Ram (PW-2) have clearly stated that they did see the petitioner throwing the child into the well. Moreover, according to the post-mortem report, the child had suffered injuries on the back of his head due to which he expired. Thus, prima facie the offence under Sec. 302 Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, it is not a case of false implication. Lastly, Sec. 12 of the Act is not a mandatory provision as it contains three exceptional circumstances under which the benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile delinquent. One of the circumstances is that the bail should be denied in case the release would "defeat the ends of justice". According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the parents would be shocked and their sense of justice would be defeated in case the alleged murderer is permitted to be set at liberty by giving her the benefit of bail.