Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) SHRI Moolchand Kumawat, father of petitioner, has appeared and argued the matter.
(2.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Mukesh Kumawat, a juvenile, aged 13 years. His application filed under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (for short, 'the Act of 2000') was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board by order dated 07.07.2010. The appeal filed against the aforesaid order under Section 52 of the Act of 2000 was also rejected by the learned court of Sessions, Jaipur City, Jaipur, on 13th July, 2010. Offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is one under Section 376 read with Sections 511 and 342 of the IPC. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's age is 13 years and he thus admittedly is juvenile. The learned Juvenile Justice Board and learned Court of Sessions observed that looking to the age of the petitioner, although on the gravity of the offence, the application of the petitioner deserves to be allowed but since there is enmity between the parties and if the petitioner is released, there is apprehension that he may be physically harmed. It has been further observed that his release would mentally and psychologically affect him.
(3.) I find myself unable to concur with the view expressed by the learned Board and the learned court of Sessions. The school certificate of 8th Board pattern Examination Certificate of the petitioner has been placed on the record, according to which, date of birth of the petitioner is 6th July, 1997 and therefore on the date of incident i.e. 8th June, 2010, the petitioner was less than 13 years of age. The application before the court below and also before this Court has been moved by petitioner's father Moolchand, who is his natural guardian. It is his responsibility to ensure safety of the juvenile. Right of the petitioner to bail could not have been denied particularly when the Board itself has observed that gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him is not such which may justify denial of the bail.;