LAWS(RAJ)-2017-11-31

AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE

Decided On November 29, 2017
AJAY KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections 457 & 380 IPC. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 (hereinafter shall be referred as "the Act of 2015") before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sri Ganganagar was rejected vide order dated 03.11.2017. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal under Section 101 of the Act was filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 07.11.2017. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 03.11.2017 and 07.11.2017 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that petitioner is below 18 years of age and he has been falsely involved in the case without any material evidence. Further 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 them to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is argued that learned Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the petitioner is juvenile and entitled to get benefit of provisions of the Act of 2015. Section 12 of the Act of 2015 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 Act of 2015. The petitioner is in custody since long time and no further detention of the petitioner is required for any purpose. 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.