KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI, J. - (1.) BY this revision petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 20.10.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.10.2010 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Shri Ganganagar in FIR No. 167/2010 under Sections 447.302 IPC registered at Police Station Rawla, District Shri Ganganagar.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 20.7.2010, complainant Rani Kaur lodged a FIR at the Police Station Rawala to the effect that on 19.7.2010, her husband Dan Singh slept in the field to guard the crops. In the morning of 20.7.2010 at about 6.00 a.m. when she went to the field to give tea to her husband, she saw that her husband was lying dead on the cot covered with blood. He had sustained injuries by some sharp weapon on his neck, face, chest, and fingers of left hand. On the aforesaid report, police registered FIR No. 167/2010 under Sections 447, 302 IPC and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, present petitioner was detained in the above FIR . Since the petitioner was minor, therefore, an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was filed on behalf of petitioner for grant of bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Shri Ganganagar. The application was rejected after hearing both the sides by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Shri Ganganagar vide order dated 18.1.2010. Petitioner then preferred appeal under Section 52 of the Act before the District and Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar, who by order dated 20.10.2010 dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of rejection of bail for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline the bail to juvenile. He 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. He further contended that the orders of the courts below are not based on definite facts and they are based on surmises and conjectures.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the order of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge.;