Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1172 (MP)

BABLU v. STATE OF M. P.

2010-11-23

S.N AGGARWAL

body2010
ORDER : S.N. AGGARWAL, J. 1. The revisionist was a juvenile and around 17 year olds at the time of commission of the offence punishable under Sections 376, 242, 506B 294, 223, 120B of IPC. He has filed this Criminal Revision u/s 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000 against the impugned order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the Principal judge, juvenile justice Board, Morena declining him interim bail during the pendency of the trial. 2. I have heard Shri H.K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist and Shri Vishal Mishra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State and have also perused the case file. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed this Criminal Revision mainly on the ground that the revisionist has earlier filed two rounds of Criminal Revision No. 492/2010 and Criminal Revision No. 752/2010 which were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 14.07.2010 and dated 29.09.2010 respectively. 4. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State that since the earlier two Criminal Revisions filed by the revisionist for similar relief were dismissed by this Court therefore the present criminal revision filed by the revisionist against the impugned order of the Principal Judge of Juvenile Justice Board dated 06.10.2010 should not be entertained. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that after the earlier Criminal Revision bearing Criminal Revision No. 492/2010 was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2010, the revisionist has filed Criminal Revision No. 752/ 2010 against the order of trial Court denying interim bail. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist had filed an application for interim bail before the learned Principal judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Morena in terms of the liberty granted to him by this court vide order dated 29.09.2010 in Criminal Revision No.752/2010. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that the Court below could not have declined interim bail to the revisionist during pendency of the trial as he was admittedly a Juvenile on the date of commission of the offence unless it was of the view that the relief to the Juvenile will bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would, otherwise, defeat the ends of justice. 7. 7. Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is relevant and the same is extracted herein below: - 12. Bail of Juvenile:- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds 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. 8. A plain reading of the above statutory provision makes it clear that a juvenile can be denied bail only if there appears reasonable ground to believe that his 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 otherwise defeat the ends of justice. 9. In the present case, there is no discussion in the impugned order that the Court below has called for the report of the Social Investigation Officer to form an opinion that it was not advisable to release the revisionist during pendency of the trial as his release was likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would otherwise, defeat the ends of justice. There is nothing on record to show that the release of the revisionist on interim bail would expose the revisionist to moral, physical of psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 10. This Court is of the opinion that simply incorporating grounds mentioned u/s 12(1) of the Act in the Impugned order in the absence of any evidence or material on record was not sufficient for the Court below to deny interim bail to the revisionist. I am of the view that the impugned order denying interim bail to the revisionist cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and the said order is, therefore, liable to be set aside, Accordingly, this petition is allowed. I am of the view that the impugned order denying interim bail to the revisionist cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and the said order is, therefore, liable to be set aside, Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Court below is hereby set aside. The revisionist is directed to be released on interim bail upon his father's furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Morena. 11. Needless to mention that the revisionist shall surrender to custody in the event he is convicted for the offence for which he is facing trial. 12. This Criminal Revision stands disposed of in terms referred above.