SARVAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenilethrough his natural guardian) as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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 juvenile and entitled to get benefit of provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act clearly provides that if the accused is juvenile, then he should be released on bail, but learned Courts below fully ignored the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. 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 placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Prakash Vs. State, 2006 CrLJ 1373 , Amandeep Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2011 CrLJ 1599 .

(3.) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the petitioner as also the judgment passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.