Adam Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - s tkus l ends of the justice will be defeated.raghuvendra s. rathore, j. 1. as these three revision petitions arise out of the same first information report, having same sets of facts and grounds of challenge, they are being decided by a common order.2. application for grant of bail was filed by these juvenile petitioners in f.i.r., no. 62/09 registered at police station kishanganj, ajmer for the offence under section 376 ipc. all the three petitioners have been named in the report and there are specific allegations against each of them. the allegations levelled in the report read as under:eqs eqlrkd cqykdj isny lsuv lvhqu ldwy ds ikl taxy es ikuh dh vadh ds ikl ys x;k o eqs /kedk dj ogka tcjnlrh esjs lkfk cqjk dke fd;k es fpyykus yxh rks esjs eqag ij gkfk j[k fn;k mlds ckn djhc 11 cts fnu eqlrkd eqs lvhqu ldwy ds ikl ,d dejs esa ys x;k ogka lkxj uke ds ym+ds ds edku ij esjs lkfk eqlrkd ds vykok pkj ym+ds vksj fks tks vkil esa ds ml uke lkxj] vkne] rktw o ,d ym+dk vksj fkk uke hkwy xbz us esjs lkfk nks fnu rd fnu esa nks nks ckj xyr dke fd;k o tcju eqs dejs esa can jkka3. further, it is alleged that mustaq had come again later to call the prosecutrix and at that time she made the complaint to her father. the accused petitioners, after their arrest, moved applications for bail under section 12 of the juvenile justice act 2000 before the learned magistrate. the learned magistrate dismissed the bail application by his order dated 1.4.2009, after making following observations:dsl mk;jh dk voyksdu djus ls hkh ;gh izdv gksrk gs fd cky vipkfjx.k us vu; eqyfteku ds lkfk feydj eqlekr ehuk ds lkfk tcju mls dejs es ys tkdj mlds lkfk xyr dke fd;k] ftlls ,slk izrhr gksrk gs fd cky vipkfjx.k ds vu; kkr vijk/kh;ksa ds lg;ksx esa vkus dh iw.kz vka'kdk gs rfkk ;kfn ,sls vijk/k esa ckyvipkfjx.k dks tekur dk ykhk fn;k tkrk gs rks blls u;k; ds mn~ns'; dk hkh guu gksxka4. the accused petitioners then filed an appeal before the learned sessions judge but the same was also dismissed on 10th april, 2009 by observing as under:eksus vius 26-3-09 ds vkns'k esa hkh fy[kk fkk fd lkewfgd cykrlax djus okys vipkfj;ksa dks tekur dk ykhk fn;k fn;k x;k rks vfhk;ksd=h ds ekrk&firk; mudh tku hkh ys ldrs gs ;g cky vipkfj;ks ds loa; fgr eaas gs fd os tekur ij ckgj vkus ds ctk; tsy es lqjf{kr csbs jgs a ,sls vipkfj;ks dks tekur dk ykhk fn;s tkus ls u dsoy nwljs vijk/k ?kfvr gksxs] oju~ tu lkeku; dh u;k; o;olfkk esa vklfkk /kwfey gksxh a esjk ;g ekuuk gs fd orzeku izdj.k dh vipkfj;ksa ds ekeys esa /kkjk 12 ts-ts- ,dv] 2000 ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gs rfkk vipkjh;ks dks tekur dk ykhk fn;s tkus l ends of the justice will be defeated.5. the learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that all the accused persons are juvenile and as such they may be released on bail under section 12 of the act of 2000. they have also submitted that there is delay in lodging of the first information report. they have further submitted that the prosecutrix is habitual of sexual intercourse. however, the main emphasis of the argument of the learned counsels for the petitioners is that as the petitioners are juvenile, they be released on bail. in support of their submissions, reliance has been placed on the cases of sanjay kumar v. state of u.p. 2003 cr.l.j., 2284, prakash v. state of raj. 2006(1) cr.lr. (raj.) 281: rlw 2006(1) raj. 538 and santosh kumar v. state of raj., 2008(2) cr.l.r. (raj.) 1489.6. on the other hand, the learned public prosecutor has seriously opposed the revision petitions and submitted that the prayer of the petitioner for bail be rejected. he has submitted that as per the medical evidence on record, the age of the accused petitioner adam is between 16-18 years, taju is between 16-18 years, and that of mustak ali is between 13-15 year of age. he has also submitted that date of birth of the prosecutrix is 2nd april, 1994 and as per the medical report her age is 15-17 years. the learned public prosecutor has also submitted that in the statements recorded under section 164 cr.p.c., the prosecutix has categorically made allegations against all the accused petitioners. in the last, he has submitted that ends of justice would be met if the bail application of all the accused petitioners are rejected in the instant case.7. i have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully perused the orders passed by both the courts below.8. in my view the facts and circumstances of the present case, as revealed from the material on record, are certainly glaring and the allegations against the accused petitioners are of serious nature. the learned magistrate has given very specific reasoning while rejecting the bail application of the accused petitioners, so also the learned sessions judge while dismissing their appeals and, therefore, the orders passed by both the courts below does not warrant any interference. needless to say that in bail matters the orders passed by different courts cannot be taken to be as binding precedents because each matter depends on its own merits and facts and circumstances of that particular case. it has been so laid down in the case of mohanlal v. state reported in 2005(2) cr.l.r. (raj.) 1320.9. this court is conscious with regard to bail matters of juveniles under the juvenile justice (care and protection of children) act, 2000 and also the provisions made thereunder. since the legislature itself has, in its wisdom, laid down under section 12 of the act that a juvenile could not be released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.10. in the instant case, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the serious allegations levelled against the petitioners and the observations made by the learned courts below, i am of the considered opinion that if the accused petitioners are released on bail, then it would not serve the ends of justice.11. for the aforesaid reasons, these revision petitions are dismissed at this stage, however, the learned trial court is directed to record the statements of prosecutrix, as first witness, as and when the trial commences.