Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 671 (MP)

MANISH s/o SANKARLAL v. STATE OF M. P.

2010-07-08

INDRANI DATTA

body2010
JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard. Petitioner has filed this revision under section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Prevention) Act of 2000 (for brevity "Act 2000") for setting aside the order dated 28-4-2010 passed by the Sessions Judge Ashok Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 34/10 arising out of order dated 21-4-2010 passed by the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Board Ashok Nagar whereby order of rejection of bail application of petitioner has been affirmed. 2. Facts in compendium are that Crime No. 139/10 has been registered at Police Station Kachnar, District Ashok Nagar against the present petitioner and others for offence punishable under sections 307, 147, 148, 149/34 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and separate charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioner in Juvenile Court. In that Court, the petitioner has filed one application for grant of bail, which was rejected. Against the order one appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, which was also dismissed giving rise to present revision. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is admittedly juvenile and his date of birth is 2-8-1995 and hence on the alleged date of incident i.e. 1-3-2010 he was juvenile. It is further submitted that the trial Court has erred in rejecting his application for bail and learned appellate Court has also erred in rejecting the appeal. Hence that order be set aside and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that while deciding the bail of juvenile heinousness of seriousness of crime cannot be considered to deny his bail. It is further submitted that learned appellate Court has not assigned any reason that on what grounds learned trial Court has taken a view that if the petitioner is released on bail, his release is likely to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Girraj s/o Banwari Yadav vs. State of M. P., 2006(3) MPLJ 325 . In that case Bench of this Court has held that while dealing with a bail application of juvenile, heinousness of offence has no relevance. On the anvil of aforesaid contentions it is submitted that order is not based on any reasoning, hence that order is to be set aside. 4. In that case Bench of this Court has held that while dealing with a bail application of juvenile, heinousness of offence has no relevance. On the anvil of aforesaid contentions it is submitted that order is not based on any reasoning, hence that order is to be set aside. 4. Counsel for the State has supported the impugned order and prayed for its dismissal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record so also the case diary. 6. Section 12 of Act 2000 reads as under : "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 (or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer of under the care of any fit institution or fit person) 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. (2) ... ... (3) ... ..." 7. On perusal of the aforesaid provision, it transpires that if any juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before the Board, such juvenile is entitled to be released on bail with or without surety. The release of such person can be refused if there is any possibility that his release will bring him into association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. 8. Considering the legal aspect that heinousness of crime is no ground for rejecting bail of juvenile unless there is apprehension that his release is likely to bring him into association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and would defeat the ends of justice, the impugned order dated 28-4-2010 is set aside and it is directed that petitioner be released on bail on executing a personal bond by his natural guardian in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties each for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties each for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Board, Ashok Nagar with the stipulation that on all the subsequent dates of hearing, they shall produce the juvenile before the said Board/Principal Magistrate Juvenile Court and his guardian shall keep proper look-after of the juvenile and keep him away from the company of known criminals. 9. A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned.