R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) By The Court:.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 29.05.2010, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Magistrate has denied bail to the Petitioner, and aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2010, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 29.05.2010, the Petitioner has approached this Court. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 19.05.2010, Kishan Singh lodged a report at Police Station Nadbai, wherein he claimed that he along with his nephew, Ravindra, were standing near his motorcycle. While on their way to Kheri Devi Singh they stopped to drink water near Mai village. At that time, the Petitioner came there on a tractor. The Petitioner told Ravindra that he will not spare him today. He dashed the tractor against Ravindra and ran over Ravindra's body. He subsequently back tracked the tractor over Ravindra's body. Therefore, Ravidnra died on the spot. Upon that report, the police chalked out a formal FIR, FIR No. 216/2010, for offence under Section 302 IPC and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, the Petitioner was taken into custody. Subsequently, the Petitioner moved a bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('the Act', for short) before the learned Magistrate. However, vide order dated 29.05.2010, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. Thereafter, the Petitioner moved an appeal under Section 52 of the Act before the learned Judge. However, vide order dated 26.11.2010, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) MR . Piyush Pani Mathur, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has pleaded that the police has already filed challan on 10.08.2010; the Petitioner has been under judicial custody for almost one year. Secondly, the learned Magistrate has rejected the bail on the ground of gravity of the offence. However, under Section 12 of the Act, the gravity of the offence cannot be looked into. In fact, both the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the grant of bail is a mandatory condition under Section 12 of the Act. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that in case the Petitioner were released on bail, he would go back to the company of known or unknown criminals, or such a release would expose him to mental, physical and psychological danger. Lastly, releasing the Petitioner would not defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, the bail should be granted to the Petitioner. In order to buttress this contention, the learned Counsel has relied upon the cases of Rahul Mishra v. State of M.P. : 2001 Cri.L.J. 214 and Virendra Kumar and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2009 (2) Crimes 7 (Chhatt.).;