[2025:RJ-JD:33993]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 857/2025 V S/o H, Aged About 17 Years, Through His Natural Guardian Father H S/o J Resident Of Ward No. 05, Sirasar PS Pallu District Hanumangarh Rajasthan (Presently Lodged In Observation Home Juvenile Justice Board Hanumangarh)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. Prahalad S/o Bhaira Ram, R/o Chandedi Badi Pallu District Hanumangarh Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, AAAG Mr. P.K. Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

01/08/2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through his natural guardian and Father ‘H’) as well as learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant.

The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under Sections 64 & 137(2) of BNS and under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 before learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh was rejected vide order dated 27.06.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge, Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 No.1, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.11/2025 and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 03.07.2025.

Being aggrieved of the orders dated 27.06.2025 and

03.07.2025 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is below 18 years of Age. Counsel further submits that the present petitioner has been detained in observation home since 16.06.2025. 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 has been detained in observation home 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.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant defended the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the petitioner as also the judgment passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2015.

The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 conveys the intention of the Legislature to grant bail to the juvenile, irrespective of nature or gravity of the offence, alleged to have been committed by him and bail can be denied only in the case where there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat ends of justice.

In this context, I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the courts below.

Having carefully examined provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act vis-a-vis the orders passed by the courts below, I do not find that any of the exceptional circumstances, to decline bail to a juvenile, as indicated in Section 12 of the Act of 2015, is made out.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh as well as order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Commission fo