SHAHRUKH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners(juvenile- through their guardian-fathers) 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 04.03.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 19/2013, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the order dated 25.02.2013 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sawai Madhopur in FIR No. 26/2013 registered at Police Station Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur for offence under Sections 341, 342, 363, 366, 376(2)(G) IPC and Section 3(1)(12) of SC/ST(POA) Act and Section 4 and 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, dismissing the bail application of the petitioners filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2000.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners are 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 petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence on record to show the involvement of the petitioners in the present case. The petitioners are in custody since long time and no further detention of the petitioners is required for any purpose. There is no evidence to show that if the juvenile-petitioners are released on bail, then their release is likely to bring them into association with any known criminal, or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that their release would defeat ends of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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-petitioners. 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.