Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1216 (MP)

Raj Kumar v. State of M. P.

2007-11-22

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2007
ORDER 1. Applicant has filed this revision under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, against the order dated 17.10.2007, passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 421/07, affirming the order dated 12.10.2007, passed by Chief Judical Magistrate, Sagar, rejecting the bail application of applicant in connection with Crime No. 161/07, registered by Police Khimlasa of District Sagar, under sections 452,354,506 and 376 of Indian Penal Code. 2. According to prosecution, on 14.6.2007 at about 3 O'clock in the day, applicant went at the house of prosecutrix and on the pretext of demanding screw driver entered her house and committed rape on her., When prosecutrix shouted, other family members reached at the spot, then accused ran away. Report of the incident was lodged by the prosecutrix on 21.6.2007, wherein it was mentioned that as soon as accused caught hold of her and gaged her mouth, she shouted and accused ran away. In the statement of prosecutrix recorded on 21.6.2007 and in the statement recorded on 27.6.2007 under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was disclosed that applicant had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. 3. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the regular Court, but subsequently it was found that applicant was a juvenile. Thereafter, his case was put up before the Juvenile Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated. There was a simple incident of mar-peet and quarrel, but at later stage, with some ulterior motive, it was given the colour of rape. He submits that prosecution has filed 'Panchayatnama', which was record of Panchayat convened in the presence of family members of both the parties, wherein it was resolved that both the parties would make cordial relations and would not entertain any animus against each other. He submits that story of rape was an afterthought. He submits that on ossification test of the prosecutrix it was opined that her age was between 15 to 16 years and on medical examination, she was found to be habituated to sexual intercourse. He further submits that there is no likelihood that applicant would come into contact of any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or otherwise defeat the ends of justice. 5. He further submits that there is no likelihood that applicant would come into contact of any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or otherwise defeat the ends of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the State, while opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that there is clear allegation of commission of rape in the statement of prosecutrix, recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though the allegation of rape has not been made in so many words in the first information report. He submits that allegation against the applicant is of commission of an offence, which involves immoral act. Therefore, there is reasonable apprehension that if applicant is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may be exposed to moral or psychological danger. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was a student. He belongs to a family of agriculturists. Because of an isolated incident, it cannot be said that his release on bail would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. 7. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, I am of the opinion that this revision deserves to be allowed. Bail application of a juvenile cannot be rejected merely on the ground of seriousness of the crime. The only exception to the grant of bail to juvenile is the reasonable ground for believing that release of juvenile would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. 8. In view of the facts, as alleged by the prosecution, though, prima facie, it appears that applicant committed the offence, yet there appears no ground to believe that his release would bring him into association of any known criminal or otherwise expose him to moral or psychological I danger. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant's father Jagannath is an agriculturist and permanent resident of village Mehra, District Sagar. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant's father Jagannath is an agriculturist and permanent resident of village Mehra, District Sagar. He is ready to undertake that he will keep the applicant in proper care and custody and will not permit him to come into association of any person of bad antecedent and that he shall produce the applicant before the concerned Juvenile Court, for trial. 10. In view of the above circumstances, this revision is allowed. Impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside. It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his father Jagannath's furnishing the surety in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Court, for his appearance before the trial Court. 11. It is further directed that it shall be the duty of the surety (Jagannath) to produce applicant before the trial Court as and when directed by it. He shall take proper care that applicant does not come into contact of any person of bad antecedent.