Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/764/2009 2/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 764 of 2009
=========================================================
SANJAYBHAI
RAVJIBHAI PADHIYAR (MINOR) THRO' KAILASHBEN - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MIHIR H PATHAK for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR HL JANI APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 01/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Learned A.P.P. Mr.H.L. Jani waives service of Rule on behalf of the
respondent-State.
2. This
Revision Application is preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short,
the Act ) read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, seeking bail in connection with the F.I.R.
registered as C.R.No.I-121 of 2008 with Aanklav police station for
the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. Learned
advocate Mr.M.H. Pathak for the applicant submitted that the
complaint was filed by Shri Kalidas
@ Rameshbhai
Padhiyar on 17.10.2008. The chargesheet in the matter was filed on
25.11.2008 wherein, no case is made out against
the applicant. In pursuance of the said complaint, the applicant came
to be arrested on 20.10.2008, produced before the learned Juvenile
Justice Court, Nadiad and sent to the remand home/observation home.
Thereafter, application under Section 12 of the Act was filed and the
same was rejected vide order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the learned
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Nadiad.
4. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred
Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2009 under Section 52 of the Act before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.3, Nadiad which was
rejected by the learned Judge on 05.01.2009. Therefore, the applicant
has preferred the present Revision Application stating therein that
he is an innocent person. Considering the role attributed to the
applicant and provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the applicant
deserves to be enlarged on bail as the case of the applicant would
fall under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. The learned
advocate submitted that the Courts below have not considered the
aforesaid aspect while rejecting the bail application. On bare
perusal of the orders passed by the Courts below, it becomes clear
that provisions of Section 12 of the Act were completely ignored by
the Courts below while rejecting the bail application of the
applicant. The learned advocate placed reliance on the judgments
rendered in case of Anil Kumar V/s. State of U.P. reported in 2007
Cri.L.J. 200, Prakash V/s. State of Rajasthan reported in 2006
Cri.L.J. 1373 and in case of Sandeep V/s. State of Chhattisgarh
reported in 2007 Cri.L.J. 1942 in support of the submission that
considering the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, prayer, as set
out in the application, be granted and the applicant be enlarged on
bail.
5. Learned
A.P.P. Mr.H.L. Jani, representing the respondent-State, while
opposing the Revision Application, submitted that the Courts below
have taken into consideration the provisions of Section 12 of the Act
as well as the role attributed to the applicant in a grave offence of
murder under Section 302 read with Sections 201 and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code. Considering the manner in which the juvenile has
committed the offence along with the other accused, the Courts below
have rightly rejected the application for bail and no interference is
called for in the orders passed by the Courts below. Thus,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is
apparently no infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below, the
present Revision Application deserves to be rejected.
6. I
have heard learned advocate Mr.M.H. Pathak for the applicant and
learned A.P.P. Mr.H.L. Jani for the respondent-State at length and in
great detail. I have considered the averments made in the application
and reasons assigned by the Courts below while rejecting the
application for bail preferred by the applicant. The learned advocate
placed reliance on Section 12 of the Act. On perusal of
Sub-section(1) of Section 12 of the Act, it becomes clear that when a
person who is accused of bailable or non-bailable offence and
apparently a jevunile, who is arrested or detained before the Board,
then such a person shall notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other law for the time being in
force, be released on bail with or without surety but there is a
proviso that he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable
grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into
the association with any known, criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the
ends of justice. Considering the proviso laid-down in Sub-section (1)
of Section 12 of the said Act, the application for bail can as well
be rejected by the competent court, if the ends of justice so
warrant. On perusal of order dated 05.01.2009 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.3, Nadiad in Criminal Appeal
No.1 of 2009 and the reasons assigned therein, it becomes clear that
the applicant is involved in the offence of most brutal murder. If
the applicant is released, then it is likely to flare up the
situation in the village, where he is residing at present and even
his own security would also be in danger.
7. In
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned Sessions
Judge has rejected the bail application preferred by the applicant. I
do not see any infirmity or error in order dated 05.01.2009 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.3, Nadiad in
Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2009 whereby, order dated 24.12.2008 passed
by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Nadiad
was confirmed. I have considered the judgments cited by the learned
advocate for the applicant and there is no dispute about the ratio or
proposition laid-down in the said judgments. I am also aware of the
fact that this is a Revision Application under Section 397 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and the scope and jurisdiction of this
Court is very narrow and limited.
8. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is no infirmity or
error in the orders passed by the Courts below, I am of the view that
no interference is called for in the Revision Application preferred
by the applicant and the same is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
(H.B.ANTANI,
J.)
Hitesh
Top