Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 861 (MP)

Udham @ Dinesh v. State of M. P.

2005-08-12

SHEELA KHANNA

body2005
ORDER 1. With the consent of both the parties, matter is finally heard. 2. This criminal revision under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short "the Act") is preferred against the order dated 22.6.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Criminal Appeal No. 147/05, confirming the order dated 25.5.2005 passed by Juvenile Court, Vidisha in Criminal Case No. 7/05, whereby the application of the applicant for his bail was dismissed. 3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the purpose of this revision are as follows :- On the report of the prosecutrix, Crime No.7/05 has been registered against the present applicant alongwith two others at P.S. Begamganj for committing offence under section 376 (2) (g) of IPC. The applicant has been arrested in this case on 4.2.2005. Since the applicant is a juvenile, therefore, after investigation his challan has been filed before the Juvenile Court. Vidisha. An application for bail of the applicant was moved before the Juvenile Court, but it was dismissed on the ground that his release would defeat the ends of justice. A second application for his bail was moved after filing of the challan, but that was also dismissed on the ground that the offence is a serious one. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed appeal under section 52 of the Act and the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Vidisha also dismissed the application on the ground that the order of the Juvenile Court is proper by judgment dated 20.6.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 147/05. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the applicant has preferred this criminal revision under section 53 of the Act. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that looking to the provisions of section 12 of the Act, the applicant, who is a juvenile, should be released on bail. It is urged that no material is available on record to presume that the release of the applicant on bail would defeat the ends of justice. It is submitted that simply because the applicant is facing trial for offence under section 376 (2) (g) of IPC is no ground to reject the application. It is, therefore, urged that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the provisions of section l2 of the Act and have erred in rejecting the bail application. It is submitted that simply because the applicant is facing trial for offence under section 376 (2) (g) of IPC is no ground to reject the application. It is, therefore, urged that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the provisions of section l2 of the Act and have erred in rejecting the bail application. Learned P.P. frankly admitted that facing trial of some serious charge by the juvenile itself is no ground for rejection of his bail application. 5. Section 12 of the Act provides that, if a juvenile is arrested then such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail, but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring him 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. Thus, the considerations for grant of bail to a juvenile delinquent are entirely different. It is clear that the juvenile delinquent may appear to be guilty prima facie but even then if he is apparently juvenile then he is protected under the Act and is entitled for grant of bail for the reason of his being juvenile. His bail can be refused only on three grounds, namely- (I) if there appear reasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or, (2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or (3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The bail application of the applicant was dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that his release would defeat the ends of justice. However, it has not been made clear by both the Courts below in their orders as to how and under what circumstances it was inferred that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Simply because the applicant is facing trial under section 376 (2) (g) itself could not be treated a basis to presume or infer that his release would defeat the ends of justice. As a matter of fact, there is no material on record to draw such an inference. Simply because the applicant is facing trial under section 376 (2) (g) itself could not be treated a basis to presume or infer that his release would defeat the ends of justice. As a matter of fact, there is no material on record to draw such an inference. Facing of trial of some serious offence itself is not a ground to presume or to draw inference that the release of the juvenile would defeat the ends of justice. It has been held in Rahul Mishra v. State 0f M.P. reported in [2001 (I) MPWN 76] Criminal Law Journal, 2001 page 214 that the juvenile delinquent may appear to be guilty prima facie but he is specially protected by the Act and is favourably considered for grant of bail. Thus, keeping in view the provisions of section 12 of the Act, the applicant is entitled for bail and this revision petition deserves to be allowed and both the Courts below have erred in dismissing the bail application of the applicant on the ground that his release would defeat the ends of justice, which is not sustainable under law and, therefore, this criminal revision is allowed. 6. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of juvenile Court. The bail bond is to be furnished by either father or mother or any guardian of the juvenile. 7. This criminal revision is disposed of accordingly.