SUBEDAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision petition filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (herein -after to be referred as, 'the Act') and section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the order dated 3rd May, 2010 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dholpur in FIR No. 194/2010 police station Kotwali, Dholpur whereby the application for grant of bail moved on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected and that of the order dated 5th May, 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Criminal Appeal No. 49/2010 by which the appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts, for the disposal of the present petition, are that Smt. Ramwati wife of Ramprasad lodged a report in police station Kotwali, Dholpur. On the basis of above report FIR No. 194/2010 for the offence under Sections 323, 342 and 376 IPC was registered. The petitioner being a juvenile on his behalf his father submitted an application for bail. The learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, after hearing both sides, rejected the application moved under Section 12 of the Act on 3rd May, 2010. The petitioner having felt aggrieved preferred a revision, that too was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 5th May, 2010. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) IT has been the contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material available on record to justify declining bail to the petitioner who was juvenile at the time of commission of the offence. It is also contended that before bail to a juvenile is declined, it should fulfill the requirement of Section 12 of the Act. It is also contended that merely by making a mention in the impugned order that the petitioner is likely to come in contact with known criminals is not enough unless there is some material available on record to justify the same. It is further contended that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline the bail. It is further contended that the courts below without taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of the Act, in a cursory manner declined bail to the petitioner.