X (SANJAY) Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) The petitioner being a child in conflict with law was confined and lodged at the Observation Home, Bhilwara in connection with FIR No.75/2019 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bhilwara for the offences under Ss. 363, 366-A, 344, 346, 376 (DB) and 120-B IPC and under Ss. 3/4, 5(L)(F)/6 of the POCSO Act. The bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Sec. 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2015') was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Paldi, Bhilwara vide order dtd. 24/7/2020. The appeal preferred on his behalf under Sec. 101 of the Act of 2015 has been dismissed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, No.1, Bhilwara. These two orders are assailed in this revision.

(3.) Shri Rakesh Matoria, learned counsel representing the petitioner urges that the child is confined in this case since 22/4/2019. Inquiry is not proceeding. He further points out that as a matter of fact, the petitioner and the victim were involved in a long-standing affair. The prosecution theory regarding the victim being 11 years of age is absolutely false. He thus urges that the petitioner deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the inquiry.