Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Xxx vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28142) on 1 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:28142]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 555/2025
X S/o Devji Damor, Aged About 16 Years, R/o Nai Patan, PS
Kalinjara, District Banswara. through Father Shri Devji Damor.
(Presently Kept At Observation Home, Juvenile Justice Board,
Banswara)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Tola Ram S/o Shankar Maida, R/o Chobiso Ka Padla, PS
Sadar, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghuveer Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
01/07/2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile- through
his natural guardian and Father Shri Devji Damor) as well as
learned Public Prosecutor.
The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under
Sections 137(2), 87, 127(4), 65(1) of BNS and under Section 3/4
of POCSO Act, 2012. The bail application filed by the petitioner
under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 before learned
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Banswara was
rejected vide order dated 29.03.2025. Being aggrieved by the said
order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned
Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act,
2012, Banswara in Criminal Appeal No.19/2025 and the same has
(Downloaded on 01/07/2025 at 09:40:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28142] (2 of 4) [CRLR-555/2025]
been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order
dated 04.04.2025.
Being aggrieved of the orders dated 29.03.2025 and
04.04.2025 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 at the time of alleged incident occurred
and challan in this case has already been presented. Counsel
further submits that prosecutrix, in her statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., did not make allegation of rape against the
present petitioner, however, in her statement, under Section 164
Cr.P.C., she levelled allegation of rape against the petitioner. 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 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.
(Downloaded on 01/07/2025 at 09:40:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28142] (3 of 4) [CRLR-555/2025]
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 29.03.2025 passed by the learned
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Banswara as well as
order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Banswara
declining bail to the petitioner is hereby set aside.
It is ordered that the accused-petitioner X S/o Devji Damor
shall be released on bail in FIR No.64/2025 Police Station Sadar,
District Banswara upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural
guardian in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each along with a surety in
(Downloaded on 01/07/2025 at 09:40:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28142] (4 of 4) [CRLR-555/2025]
the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Banswara; with the stipulation that on all
subsequent dates of hearing, he shall appear before the said court
or any other court, during pendency of the investigation/trial in
the case and that his guardian shall look after the delinquent child
and secure him away from the company of known criminals.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
32-GKaviya/-
(Downloaded on 01/07/2025 at 09:40:01 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)