Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta, J.
X - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 494 of 2021
Decided on : 01-07-2021
The court considered the provisions of Sections 12, 101, and 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act in the context of a bail application for a child in conflict with the law. It concluded that there is no legislative mandate under the Juvenile Justice Act to notify the victim before hearing the bail application of a child in conflict with the law at any stage. The court emphasized that the concept of hearing the complainant in such proceedings is foreign to the fundamental principles underlying the welfare legislation. It also highlighted that the legislative intent does not indicate a requirement to notify the complainant before considering the bail application of a child in conflict with the law. The court allowed the revision and ordered the release of the accused-petitioner on bail, setting aside the previous orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a child in conflict with the law, had his bail application rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children Court. The court found that there was no foundation for the apprehension expressed regarding the petitioner coming into contact with other offenders and concluded that the petitioner was entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to be enlarged on bail and allowed the revision, setting aside the previous orders.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the bail application for a child in conflict with the law and the requirement to notify the victim before hearing the bail application at different stages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of legislative mandate to notify the victim before hearing the bail application of a child in conflict with the law, emphasizing the fundamental principles underlying the welfare legislation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision and ordered the release of the accused-petitioner on bail, setting aside the previous orders.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Mehta, J. - Though this Court had directed the learned Public Prosecutor by order dated 17.06.2021 to get the notices of the respondent No.2 complainant served through the SHO concerned. But till date, compliance has not been made.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has raised a preliminary objection that the revision cannot be decided in absence of notice to the complainant respondent No.2 Mani Lal.
3. I have considered the said submission in light of the relevant legal provisions. It may be stated here that Sections 12, 101 and 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act are the provisions dealing with the prayer for bail made on behalf of the CICL at different stages.
4. These provisions are quoted hereinbelow for the sake of convenience :-
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.
(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.
(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail.
101. Appeals.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person aggrieved by an order made by the Committee or the Board under this Act may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the Children's Court, except for decisions by the Committee related to Foster Care and Sponsorship After Care for which the appeal shall lie with the District Magistrate:
Provided that the Court of Sessions, or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time and such appeal shall be decided within a period of thirty days.
(2) An appeal shall lie against an order of the Board passed after making the preliminary assessment into a heinous offence under section 15 of the Act, before the Court of Sessions and the Court may, while deciding the appeal, take the assistance of experienced psychologists and medical specialists other than those whose assistance has been obtained by the Board in passing the order under the said section.
(3) No appeal shall lie from,--
(a) any order of acquittal made by the Board in respect of a child alleged to have committed an offence other than the heinous offence by a child who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years; or
(b) any order made by a Committee in respect of finding that a person is not a child in need of care and pro
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
