- (1.) THIS criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to be as 'the Act') against the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Alwar in Criminal Appeal No.168/2010 whereby the appeal filed against the order of Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar passed on 19.10.2010 in criminal case (FIR) No.202/2010 of PS-Bhiwadi, Alwar for offence under Section 395 and 458 IPC had been dismissed.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor for the State and also the father of the petitioner present. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 3.5.2010 one Kartar Singh, Manager of M/s. Vidhya Metal Manufacturing Co.Pvt. Limited, RIICO Ind. Area, Bhiwadi lodged a written report at P.S. Bhiwadi to the effect that at about 2.15 am, 15-20 dacoits laced with weapons jumped the factory gate and started firing. Lock of main gate was broken from inside and that Tata Truck 407 and Bolero Jeep were brought in the premises. On being informed by the guard, all the employees working inside went on the roof and throwing stones on the dacoits. The dacoits in turn, did firing which injured employees. They also broke the shutter of the work-shop and threatening the employees working there, took about 6000-6500 kg of copper wire bundles and copper scrap worth Rs.25-30 lacs and drove the copper bundles in Tata 407 Truck and Bolero Jeep. On this report, criminal case (FIR) No. 202/2010 under Sections 395 IPC was registered and the present petitioner being a juvenile was remanded to juvenile home. His bail application filed before the Juvenile Justice Board was dismissed vide order dated 19.10.2010. As against the order dated 19.10.10, an appeal was preferred before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Alwar which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2010 which has been assailed before this Court. The learned Sessions Judge as also the Juvenile Justice Board dismissed the application under Section 12 of 'the Act' on the main ground that, besides the present case, the petitioner was also involved in two more cases of same nature along with other 10-12 accused persons who were common in all the three cases. It was observed by learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order that the perusal of the case diaries pertaining to the three matters, showed that the petitioner alongwith co-accused had allegedly committed dacoity in M/s. Vidhya Metal Manufacturing Co.Pvt. Limited. He and his other co-accused had also committed robbery in the same manner in other industry namely M/s.Best Industries, for which case no.189/2010 under Sections 458/34 IPC; and case no. 190/2010 under Sections 395 & 458 IPC were registered. Dismissing the appeal, it was observed that the petitioner alongwith other accused persons was involved in commission of serious offences of dacoity, robbery and theft and that the circumstances showed that there was all possibility of his coming into association with known criminals and expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Out of three cases, two pertained to the occurrence of 26.4.10 itself and that it was not possible for anybody to commit two dacoities during the same night. His argument was that just because Bolero Jeep owned by petitioner's father had been found involved in the commission of offence, that itself does not prove any case against the petitioner. It was further argued that no recovery has been made from him nor is he named in the FIR and that his test identification parade has also not been conducted. Arguing that the provisions of Section 12 of 'the Act' are mandatory, it was submitted that petitioner should be released on bail. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the matter of Lal Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan-2006(1) SCC 167. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State vehemently opposed the petition stating that the petitioner was involved with other known criminals in commission of serious offences like dacoity, robbery and theft and that his release would bring him in association with known criminals. The very fact that the petitioner alongwith same set of 10-12 accused persons is found involved in three serious cases of same nature, is itself sufficient to make a reasonable belief against the petitioner. Case diaries of case nos.190/10 and 189/10 pertaining to two occurrences of M/s. Vidhya Metal Manufacturing Co.Pvt. Limited and M/s.Best Industries were produced before me. ;