MAUNA @ MOHAN PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner(a juvenile- through his guardian father) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

(2.) THIS revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000') has been filed against the judgment dated 12.04.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 26/2013, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 03.04.2013 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dholpur in FIR No. 57/2013 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Dholpur, for offence under Sections 376 IPC and Section 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, dismissing the bail application of the petitioner filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2000.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that impugned orders passed by the Courts below are illegal, unsustainable in the eyes of law and totally against the provisions of law. Learned Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the petitioner is a juvenile and entitled to get benefit of provisions of the Act of 2000. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 clearly provides that if the petitioner is juvenile, then he should be released on bail, but learned Courts below fully ignored the provisions of the Act of 2000. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since long time and no further detention of the petitioner is required for any purpose. There is no evidence to show that if the juvenile-petitioner is released on bail, then his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat ends of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. Learned Courts below in quite cursory manner have declined bail to the applicant-petitioner. He further contended that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are not based upon definite facts and they are based on surmises and conjectures.