Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Himanshu vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27540) on 19 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27540]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6669/2025
Amit Kumar S/o Suresh Kumar, Aged About 18 Years, R/o
Rasampura Beri, Police Station Hamirwas, Tehsil Rajgarh District
Churu, Raj ( At Present Lodged In District Jail Churu )
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Ratan Lal S/o Sh Ram Kumar, R/o Rampura, Hamirwas,
Tehsil Rajgarh District Churu, Raj
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 678/2025
Himanshu S/o Shri Ranjeet, Aged About 14 Years, R/o Rampura ,
Police Station Hamirwas, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu, Through
His Natural Guardian Rajneet S/o Ramesh, R/o Rampura, Tehsil
Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan ( At Present Lodged In
Juvenile Home Churu )
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Ratan Lal S/o Sh Ram Kumar, R/o Rampura Hamirawas,
Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandrasen Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram, PP
Mr. S.K. Verma, for the complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
19/06/2025
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6669/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the instant
bail application with liberty to renew the prayer after completion of
investigation.
2. The bail application is dismissed as not pressed with the
liberty as prayed for.
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 12:35:32 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27540] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-6669/2025]
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 678/2025
1. The juvenile ‘H’ son of Shri Ranjeet has been confined in
connection with FIR No.58/2025 registered at Police Station
Hamirawas, District Churu for the offences under Sections 115(2),
126(2), 308(2), 140(3), 351(3), 324(4) IPC and Section 3(Ga),
4(2), 5i/6, 7/8, 11/12 of the POCSO Act. He is lodged at the Child
Observation Home, Churu. The bail application preferred under
Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 by the juvenile
through amicus curiae was dismissed by the learned Juvenile
Justice Board, Churu vide order dated 21.05.2025. An appeal was
preferred under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
against the said order before the learned Special Judge, POCSO
Act Cases No.1, Churu which also came to be dismissed vide order
dated 23.05.2025 and the order passed by the learned Board was
upheld. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the present
revision petition has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile
Justice Act read with Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.
2 Learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner submits that the
Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned court below has
grossly erred in rejecting the bail application of the juvenile-
petitioner. They have failed to consider the correct factual and
legal aspects of the case. The juvenile has been detained at the
Child Observation Home since quite some time and looking at the
pace at which the trial is proceeding, it will likely take long time to
conclude. The Juvenile Justice Board has treated the accused as
juvenile. He further submits that there is no possibility of the
juvenile-petitioner absconding. There is nothing on record that
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 12:35:32 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27540] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-6669/2025]
may debar him from getting released on bail, therefore, it is
humbly prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the
juvenile be released on bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the
complainant vehemently oppose the prayer made by learned
counsel for the juvenile-petitioner and submits that since the
matter pertains to commission of a grave offence, the petitioner is
not deserving of being released on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
niceties of the matter, more particularly the submissions that the
petitioner is a 14 year old boy and does not get the age of
discretion and further taking into account the legal submission
with regard to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, as per which,
bail is a rule and denial should be an exception and the exception
is very limited to the extent of apprehension that the release of
juvenile may bring him into association of known criminals, which
is not the case herein, this court is inclined to release the
petitioner on bail. His entitlement to bail is further supported as
the conditions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act are duly
satisfied.
5. Upon consideration of the overall facts and circumstances,
and considering the fact of juvenescence of the petitioner, this
Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released
on bail.
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 12:35:32 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27540] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-6669/2025]
6. The observations made herein above shall not influence the
trial judge in any manner whatsoever so as to adversely affect the
rights of either of the parties.
7. Consequently, the instant revision is allowed. The impugned
orders are set aside. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner ‘H’
S/o Shri Ranjeet, aged 14 years, arrested in connection with FIR
No.58/2025 registered at Police Station Hamirawas, District Churu
shall be released on bail; provided his natural guardian (father)
furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of
Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned court below
with the stipulation that he will make his son appear before the
Board on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do
so and he will ensure that any situation which may bring the
juvenile-petitioner into association with any known criminal or
expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or any
situation where the juvenile-petitioner may repeat the offence in
question is thwarted and he will work for improvement of the
juvenile-petitioner.
(FARJAND ALI),J
115-Pramod/-
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 12:35:32 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)