SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) The instant revision is directed against the order dated 8.8.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Appeal No.408/2017 whereby the appellate court rejected the appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioner juvenile under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act and upheld the order dated 4.8.2017 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Kishor Nyay Board, Udaipur rejecting the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner juvenile under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act in relation to F.I.R. No.241/2017, P.S. Pratapnagar, District Udaipur for offences under Sections 376(2)(I) I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act.
(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor has raised a preliminary objection that the complainant is mandatorily required to be impleaded as a party respondent in this revision in terms of the Proviso to Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act which reads as below: "102. Revision - The High Court may, at any time, either on its own motion or on an application received in this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding in which any Committee or Board or Children's Court, or Court has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit: Provided that the High Court shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard."
(3.) The Proviso mandates that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed without giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard. Apparently, the orders deciding the bail application cannot be termed as being prejudicial to the complainant of the case. Even the basic provision of bail i.e. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and the provision of appeal i.e. Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act do not require that the complainant should be provided an opportunity of hearing in the matters of bail. Apparently, the requirement of hearing the complainant would only arise in the situations when any substantial question likely to decide the fate of the case (viz. assessment of age of the child in conflict with law etc.) is being considered and such orders can possibly cause prejudice to the complainant if decided against him. Thus, this Court is of the firm opinion that by no stretch of imagination, the complainant can be held to be a person likely to be prejudiced by the decision of the bail application of a child in conflict with law unless of course, the Court is apprised that there is a report of the competent authority indicating threat to the complainant or the victim if the accused is released on bail. Hence, there is no requirement to implead the complainant as a party respondent in a revision seeking bail filed on behalf of a child in conflict with law under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice Act. Thus, the said preliminary objection raised by the learned Public Prosecutor is turned down.;