INDERJEET SINGH,J. - (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the complainant- petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as 'complainant') against the order dated 04.05.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and The Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, Dholpur in Case No.49/2019 whereby the accused-respondent No.2 (hereinafter to be referred as 'accused') was ordered to be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant submitted a missing report on 24.09.2016 of her minor daughter, aged about 16 years, on the basis of which FIR No.557/2016 was registered at Police Station Bari, District Dholpur for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376D IPC and Section 5 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012 and Section 3-2(5), 3- 1(W-1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The police after investigation filed challan and arrested the accused namely Aishveer and other co-accused Punjab Singh. After arrest, the accused filed application seeking bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act before Juvenile Justice Board, Dholpur and on its rejection vide order dated 15-6-2018, preferred appeal before the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA Cases), Dholpur and that was also dismissed vide order dated 27-6-2018. Being aggrieved, the accused preferred Revision before this Court bearing S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1173/2018 which was also dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31-8-2018 which reads as under :- "1. Petitioner through his father has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 15.06.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Dholpur whereby application filed by the petitioner under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act was rejected and against order dated 27.06.2018 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Prevention of Atrocity Cases whereby appeal preferred by the appellant was rejected. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that Section 12 is mandatory and gravity of the offence is not to be looked into while deciding an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act,2015. Petitioner has placed reliance on Anita Kumari and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017(2) WLC (Raj.) 272. 3. Counsel for complainant has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that petitioner was aged 17 years 08 months at the time of alleged offence and report has been submitted that petitioner was aware of the consequence of the act and proceedings against him are being carried out under Section 15 of the Act. It is also argued that the proviso to Section 12 would be attracted in this case as the prosecutrix is a minor girl who is the special child having mild mental retardation. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. It is true that gravity of offence is not to be looked into but equally it is true that the proviso to Section 12 of the Act would be attracted where the Court comes to the conclusion that release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice. Present is case where a minor child who is mental retardation has been gang raped and prosecutrix has named the present petitioner. Release of petitioner, who as per report was understanding consequence of the alleged act would definitely defeat the ends of justice. Further his release would have a serious impact on the retarded young girl who has not yet deposed before the Court. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the revision petition. 6. The criminal revision petition is rejected."
(3.) After rejection of revision petition by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, age of the accused was determined by the Medical Board and the case was referred to the Special Judge, POCSO Act before whom the accused again moved bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. along with co-accused Punjab Singh, which was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 4-5-2019. Hence, being aggrieved the present appeal seeking cancellation of bail has been filed by the complainant challenging the order dated 4-5-2019 passed by the learned trial court.;