RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Miss Bharati Meena - Appellant
Versus
Anita Meena & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Revision Petition No. 8 of 2020
Decided On : 27-02-2020
Bail - Juvenile Justice - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 12 - The court emphasized the presumption of bail for juveniles unless specific grounds for denial are established, focusing on the protection of the juvenile's welfare.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a criminal revision petition against the dismissal of a bail application for a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, by the trial court and appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide evidence that releasing the juvenile would expose her to danger or defeat the ends of justice, thus warranting bail.
Issues: Whether the juvenile should be granted bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a juvenile should ordinarily be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that such release would pose a risk to the juvenile or the justice process.
Result: The revision petition is allowed, and the juvenile is granted bail.
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act of 2015' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No.l, Udaipur (for short 'the appellate court' hereinafter), whereby the appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the juvenile through his natural guardian against the order dated 06.12.2019 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Udaipur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) on an application under section 12 of the Act of2015, whereby the prayer for releasing the juvenile on bail was dismissed by the trial court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no other case is pending against the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
4. Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 reads as under:
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"
5. From perusal of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, it is clear that a delinquent juvenile ordinarily has to be released on bail irrespective of nature of offence alleged to have been committed by her unless it is shown by evidence that if she is released on bail, there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the delinquent juvenile is likely to bring her into association with any known criminal or expose her to moral, physical or psychological danger or that her release would defeat the ends of justice. The nature of offence and the merits of the case do not have any relevance. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material while opposing the bail and make out any of the grounds provided in the Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, which may persuade the Court not to release the juvenile on bail. But in this case, there is nothing on record to show that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring her into association with any known criminal or expose to moral, physical or psychological danger or that her release would defeat the ends of justice.
6. It is also noticed that no other case is pending against the juvenile.
7. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 11.12.2019 and 06.12.2019 are set aside and it is directed that petitioner - Miss Bharati Meena D/o Khuman Meena be released on bail provided her natural guardian-father Khuman Meena furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Udaipur with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he/she shall produce the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board, Udaipur or any other Court till the enquiry or trial is concluded.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.