Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Pankaj —Appellant
versus
State, Through PP —Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 355 of 2020
Decided on 22.5.2020
(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 12 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 167 – Bail to juvenile in conflict with law – A child in conflict with law is to be given benefit of bail – Such benefit can be denied only upon recording a finding that there appears reasonable belief that such release is likely to bring the person into association of any known criminal or expose him to more physical or psychological danger – Two more cases of like nature are pending against petitioner – Considering nature of allegation against petitioner, Board and Appellate Court were justified in concluding that if he is handed over to guardian or released on bail, he is likely to go in company or in association of known criminals and same would expose him to crimes of like nature – However, as felony for which petitioner is to be tried, prescribes less than 10 years’ sentence, investigating officer was required to file final report or charge-sheet within 60 days – Same has not been filed even till today – Petitioner is justified in asserting his right to be released on bail, by offering requisite bail bonds – Bail granted to petitioner. (Paras 10, 11, 33, 35, 36 and 37)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 167 – Default (Compulsive) bail – Section 167 does not provide any outer time limit within which investigation is required to be completed – Section 167 is not a provision containing limitation for filing a final report – It is, rather a provision, which prescribes consequence or effect of failure of an investigating officer to complete investigation within specified period – Failure to adhere to timeline contained in Section 167 of Code does not result in automatic acquittal, but it gives rise to a right to an accused to be released on bail – Accused gets an inviolable and indefeasible right to be released on bail in the event of an investigation not being complete and on failure of prosecution to file final report within time prescribed – In absence of any amendment in Statute and without there being any remote reference of investigation or provisions of the Code in order of Supreme Court, taking shield of Supreme Court’s order to take away vested right of an accused, is nothing short of violating his right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution. (Paras 18, 21, 28 and 31)
Result: Criminal Revision Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Mehta, J.—Petitioner has preferred present revision petition under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘JJ Act’) challenging order dated 17.2.2020, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012 and Child Right Protection Act, 2005) No.1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) in Cr. Appeal No.8/2020 rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 10.2.2020 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘JJ Board’ or ‘the Board’) in connection with FIR No.331/2019, Police Station Rishabhdev, whereby bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the JJ Act has been rejected.
2. Before delving upon the questions involved and raised, it will be apt to lay factual canvass, which unfolds thus:
2.1 One Swapnil Kalal filed an FIR on 12.10.2019, intimating that two young boys intercepted him when he reached Darshan Ghati on his motorcycle and snatched away his bag containing Rs.62,460/- and some important documents.
2.2 During investigation, the police identified the present petitioner as one of the accused and apprehended to try him for the offence under Section 392/34 of Indian Penal Code.
2.3 Considering that petitioner was 17 years of age - a juvenile, he was ordered to be sent to Rehabilitation Center on 30.1.2020.
2.4 A bail application was filed on petitioner’s behalf by his uncle, which came to be rejected by the JJ Board, vide its order dated 10.2.2020.
2.5 The petitioner preferred an appeal against the above order dated 10.2.2020, which too was rejected by the appellate Court.
2.6 The petitioner (through his guardian) has prefered the present revision petition seeking quashment of above referred orders passed by the Board and appellate Court while also praying that he be released on bail.
3. Questioning the legality and proprietary of the above referred orders, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the offences alleged against the petitioner (Section 392/34 of the IPC) are triable by magistrate and thus, the Juvenile Justice Board ought to have enlarged the petitioner on bail considering that he was behind bars for considerable period. He argued that despite being a juvenile, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody for not so serious offence. Showing concern about petitioner’s predicament, he added that had he been a major, he would have been released on bail by this time.
4. Concluding his submissions, while informing that charge-sheet/final report has not been filed so far, he asserted that petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail, as the statutory period for filing charge-sheet has since passed.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and argued that as per Section 12 of JJ Act, the Board is not required to mechanically release a juvenile or grant him bail as a matter of course, merely because the accused before it is a juvenile.
6. He pointed out that two more cases of similar nature are pending against the petitioner and the Board as well as the appellate Court has recorded a finding that if the petitioner is released, he will again go in the same company and is likely to commit offences of similar nature. He, thus submitted that in the facts of the present case, it is expedient and in the interest of juvenile that he be kept in the Observation Home itself.
7. Responding to the argument about petitioner’s right to be released on account of prosecution’s failure to file final report, learned Public Prosecutor gave an excuse that the charge-sheet could not be filed in the wake of lock down. He heavily relied upon order dated 23.3.2020 passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020, whereby period of limitation came to be extended considering the situation of overall lock down. He emphasized that till lock down continues, the period prescribed in the provisions of Section 167(2) of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
