Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1256 (MP)

Ravindra Minj v. State of Chhattisgarh

2006-11-08

SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2006
ORDER Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant/juvenile, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 63/2006, registered at Police Station, Baikunthpur, District Koria for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. 2. The brief facts are that this applicant, who is a juvenile offender, co-accused namely Bhunesh and the deceased namely Santara Bai, who is the wife of co-accused-Bhunesh, were travelling on a motorcycle. In fact, they were returning back from the parents' place of the deceased-Santara Bai. The allegations are that in the way, the co-accused pressed the mouth and neck of the deceased with the help of Gumchha/hands and ultimately, the deceased became unconscious. The deceased was taken to the hospital, but the hospital was closed. It is stated that the deceased died without getting any treatment. In the post-mortem report, it comes that the cause of death was asphyxia due to blockage of respiratory tube. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant/juvenile submits that the allegations against the present applicant is that he was driving the motorcycle and there is no allegation that he participated in pressing the mouth or neck of the deceased. He also submits that at the most, an offence under Section 201 of the IPC would be made out against this applicant/juvenile. He further submits that the Court below, without recording any reason, dismissed the application of this applicant/juvenile by only saying that if the juvenile is released on bail, it would defeat the ends of justice. He prays for releasing the applicant on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail application. 5. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Sessions Judge has adverted to the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and has dismissed the bail application by saying that if the juvenile is released on bail, it would defeat the ends of justice, but he has not recorded reasons as to how the release would defeat the ends of justice. 6. 6. A learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court held in the matter of Lavkush Chamar @ Lavkushseth v. State of U.P. 3 (2003) CCR 109 that release of juvenile, no doubt can be refused if any one of the 3 circumstances referred to in Section 12 of the said Act exist, but the existence of such circumstances should not be merely a guess work of the Court, but it should be based on some evidence may be police report, or the report of the probation officer or any other such evidence, which can substantiate the refusal of release. On the similar logic, the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Murari v. State of Rajasthan 3 (2003) CCR 384 (DB), released a juvenile holding that no material is there on record to support that the conditions referred to in Section 12 of the said Act, which disentitle the accused applicant from granting bail was available against the accused (Para 7). The Allahabad High Court also held in the matter of Deepak Kumar v. State of U.R 3 (2003) CCR 98, that it is not that the mere quoting of few lines from this Act, the bail should be refused as the impugned order of the said case docs not show any such ground. The High Court further held that the impugned order was passed in utter disregard of Section 12 of the said Act and it nowhere shows that release would defeat the ends of justice and more over there is also nothing to show as to how the release would defeat the ends of justice. 7. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has only stated that the release would defeat the ends of justice, but he has not given any reason as to how the release shall defeat the ends of justice. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, when nothing adverse has been shown in the rejection order of the Sessions Court against the release of the applicant/juvenile under Section 12 of the said Act, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case in which the applicant/juvenile should be released on bail. 9. His application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. 10. It is directed that this applicant/juvenile shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond in sum of Rs. 9. His application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. 10. It is directed that this applicant/juvenile shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Board for his appearance before the said Board on each date of hearing till the disposal of the trial. The bail bond shall be furnished by father/guardian of the juvenile, as the case may be. Certified copy as per rules.