RAM KUMAR @ SETHI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Hanumangarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh in FIR No. 197/2010 under Section 302, 341/34 IPC registered at Police Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 30.04.2010 at 9.10 a.m. a written report submitted by Balveer Singh S/o Chanda Singh was presented by Constable Rai Singh in the Police Station Nohar to the effect that Sardul Singh, elder brother of the complainant, was living alone in Dhani Sikhan Ward No. 1. On 29.04.2010 in the evening at about 7-8 p.m. he went to Nanda Colony to supply milk and while returning from there, some unknown person or persons killed him by strangulating his neck and his body was found lying near outer signal. On the aforesaid report, police registered FIR No. 197/2010 under Section 302 IPC and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, present petitioner Ram Kumar @ Sethi was detained in the above FIR. Since the petitioner was minor, therefore, an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was filed on behalf of petitioner for grant of bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh. The application was rejected after hearing both the sides by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh vide order dated 13.12.2010 on the ground that present case is of henious nature pending against the petitioner and if he is released on bail, there is possibility that he would come in contact with the other accused, which would defeat the ends of justice. Petitioner then preferred appeal under Section 52 of the Act before the District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh and then the case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Hanumangarh, who by order dated 22.12.2010 dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of rejection of bail for the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline the bail to juvenile. He 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. He further contended that the orders of the courts below are not based on definite facts and they are based on surmises and conjectures.