Banwari Lal Sharma, J@mdashThis is a revision petition against the order dt. 02.12.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No. 233/2014 whereby the appeal preferred against the order dt. 01.12.2014 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner rejecting the application under Sec. 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act in FIR No. 241/2014, P.S. Chattargarh, Bikaner has been dismissed. According to the prosecution case, on 01.11.2014, a complainant Durga Devi filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 3, Bikaner alleging there that Kanaram used to come to her house. On 10.08.2014, when her parents were not at home, Kanaram entered into the house in the night and committed rape on her. Thereafter, on 12.08.2014, she told about the incident to her parents on which panchayat took place and Kanaram and his father put their excuse. Thereafter, on 30.10.2014, Kanaram came to the house of the complainant and tried to molest her on which she went to lodge a report but when the same was not registered, the complaint was filed. The said complaint was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to P.S. Chattargarh where Case No. 241/2014 was registered for the offences under Sees. 376 and 458 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. After investigation, Kanaram was taken into custody and as he was juvenile, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner. The father of the petitioner preferred an application under Sec. 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for releasing him on bail but the same has been dismissed vide order dt. 01.12.2014.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dt. 01.12.2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal but the same has also been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner vide order dt. 02.12.2014. Hence, this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Courts below have rejected the bail application of the petitioner only on the ground that on his release he may come in association with hardened criminals and it will result into failure of justice. Whereas, as per the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 2000, bail can be denied to a juvenile only if there appear 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 the ends of justice. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition in general.
5. The provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 are mandatory and the intention of the legislature is to grant bail to a juvenile irrespective of nature or gravity of offence and the bail can only be denied only in the case where there appear 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 the ends of justice.
6. This Court, in catena of decisions including the judgment delivered in the case of
7. So far as failure of justice is concerned, without any material on record, which shows that release of juvenile on bail shall result into failure of justice, it cannot be said that allowing bail application of a juvenile irrespective of gravity of offence amounts to failure of justice.
8. In the case in hand, the report of the Probation Officer was called and perused, wherein nothing adverse was reported against the petitioner nor it was reported that his past conduct was of such a nature which could indicate his continuous association with known criminal or criminals.
9. Further, a perusal of Section 12 of the Juvenile Act reveals that a juvenile is entitled to bail notwithstanding gravity of the crime. His bail can be refused only when there are reasonable grounds for believing that his 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 the ends of justice. It is also manifest that the said Section 12 of the Juvenile Act over-rides the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ''the Code'') and other laws for the time being in force and, therefore, in the event of any inconsistency, Section 12 of the Juvenile Act will prevail.
10. Both the Courts below rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of gravity of the offence and that his release may bring him in association with hardened criminals which may put his life into danger and that will result into failure of justice.
11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any special reason to hold that there is any possibility that on his release, the petitioner may come in association with hardened criminals which may put his life into danger or there will be any failure of justice.
12. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dt. 02.12.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner as well as the order dt. 01.12.2014 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner are hereby quashed. Let the revisionist Karna Ram S/o. Shri Ramkumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond amounting to Rs. 40,000/- by his natural guardian, father with two solvent sureties amounting to Rs. 20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner with stipulation that the revisionist juvenile will be produced on each and every date of hearing before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner or where the case is being transferred and whenever called upon to do so. Further, he, along with members of family will keep a watch over the juvenile that he may not indulge in any other criminal activity.
