SARWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 07.12.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 02.12.2010 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Shri Ganganagar in FIR No. 369/2010 under Section 376(2)(f) IPC registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Shri Ganganagar.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that complainant Page 1 of 6S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 25/2011 Ramakant submitted a written report at Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Shri Ganganagar to the effect that he had gone to his native place 20 days ago leaving behind her wife and daughter aged 6 years. While he was away, the accused came to his house took her to the field and committed rape with her. When the complainant came back, her wife told him about the incident, on which he made complaint to the parents of the accused, but they quarrelled with him and threatened him. On the aforesaid report, police registered FIR No. 369/2010 under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, present petitioner 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, Shri Ganganagar. The application was rejected after hearing both the sides by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Shri Ganganagar vide order dated 02.12.2010 on the ground that present case is of henious nature pending against the petitioner and his release is likely to expose him to physical and psychological danger and that would defeat the ends of justice. Petitioner then preferred appeal under Section 52 of the Act before the Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar, who by order dated 07.12.2010 dismissed the appeal and Page 2 of 6S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 25/2011 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 they are based on surmises conjectures.