AMARLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJSTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) Vide order dated 13.11.2009, this Court had asked the learned Public Prosecutor to find out from the concerned SHO about the antecedents Of the present accused-petitioner as well as about the antecedents of Tolaram, who is alleged to be the kingpin of a gang, which is engaged in lifting of motorcycles. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, while five cases are pending against Tolaram, there are four cases which are pending against the present accused- petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Bharat Saini, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, has contended that out of the four cases, which are presently pending against the accused-petitioner, two cases have been registered against him while he was in custody in the present case. Therefore, these two cases cannot be read against him. He has further contended that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('the Act', for short) is a mandatory provision. Therefore, this Court should grant the benefit of bail to the accused- petitioner.