Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1095 (MP)

Manju @ Manaklal v. State of M. P.

2011-09-16

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT : Heard on the question of admission. This revision is preferred on behalf of the minor applicant-accused Manju @ Manaklal under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (in short "the Act"), being aggrieved by the order dated 21-6-2011 passed by the Special Judge, Sagar constituted under the provisions of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in short "the Act" in Criminal Appeal No. 171/11, whereby dismissing his appeal the order dated 1-6-2011 passed by the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Court, Sagar in Case No. 171/11, dismissing his application filed under Section 12 of the Act for giving his interim custody to his father on bail has been affirmed. The brief facts of the case necessary to adjudicate this revision are that on dated 25-5-2011 at about 6 o'clock in the evening, the prosecutrix Urmila Jatav, aged 15 years was answering the call of nature in some field. At the same time the applicant after catching her and removing her clothes committed rape on her. On lodging the report at P.S. Garhakota a Crime No. 25 1/22 was registered against the applicant for the offence under Section 376 of IPC as well as Section 3 (2) (v) and Section 3(1) (xii) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecutrix was medically examined. The interrogatory statements of the witnesses were recorded. The applicant was arrested and on completion of the investigation, the applicant being minor was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences, in the above mentioned Juvenile Court as submitted by the applicant's Counsel. Initially, on behalf of the applicant an application under Section 12 of the Act for grant of his custody on bail was filed by his father in the Juvenile Court. On dismissing the same, the appeal was preferred. On consideration, the same was also dismissed, on which the applicant has come forward with this revision. The applicant's Counsel Shri Ranjan Banerjee, after taking me through both the impugned orders and the copy of the charge-sheet as well as report of the Probationary Officer argued that in the available circumstances, both the Courts below under the mandatory provision of Section 12 of the Act, ought to have given the interim custody of the applicant to his father. In continuation he said that looking the age of the applicant as well as prosecutrix, his case be considered for grant of custody by adopting some lenient view. He also argued that the Probationary Officer appointed under the Act, has categorically stated in his report placed on the record that if the applicant is not given in interim custody and remains in observation center, then he may learn some bad habits of criminal activities from other criminal children, kept in such Centre. With these arguments, he prayed to allow his application filed under Section 12 of the Act in the Trial Court by setting aside the impugned orders by allowing this revision. On the other hand, Shri Ashok Chourasia, State's Counsel with the assistance of the case diary by justifying the impugned orders of the Subordinate Courts, said that same have been passed after taking into consideration the evidence collected by the investigating agency, according to which the applicant has committed a very serious offence of rape with a minor girl of 15 years, therefore, at this stage, he does not deserve for grant of interim custody on bail and prayed for dismissal of this revision. However, he has not disputed the position stated by the Probationary Officer in his report, as argued by the applicant's Counsel. Having heard the parties, keeping in view the arguments advanced by the Counsel, I have carefully gone through the case diary and the papers of the charge-sheet alongwith the aforesaid report of the Probationary Officer. It is apparent from the case diary and the charge-sheet that the applicant who is minor in the age of 15 years has committed the alleged act with a minor girl of 15 years, belonging to the community defined and covered under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. But this Court has to consider the question for giving the interim custody of the applicant to his father in view of the mandatory provision of Section 12 of the Act. According to such section unless sufficient adverse circumstances as stated in such Section 12 are not available showing that on giving the accused in interim custody, he will again involved in the criminal activities and commit the offence, the interim custody should not be refused. According to such section unless sufficient adverse circumstances as stated in such Section 12 are not available showing that on giving the accused in interim custody, he will again involved in the criminal activities and commit the offence, the interim custody should not be refused. In such premises, in the normal course, the Juvenile Offender like the applicant keeping in view of his future welfare should be given in interim custody on bail to his guardian. It is apparent from the report of the Probationary Officer placed on the record that if the applicant is kept in the observation Center, then he will not be in a position to prosecute his study further, consequently his future career may be destroyed. It is also stated that the applicant has been kept in such Center along with other Juvenile Offenders, who were as alleged found involved in some serious offences. So on continuing his custody, he may learn more criminal activities from such other children and thereby his future may be jeopardize. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances in which no adverse report has come from the Probationary Officer against the applicant without commenting anything on merit of the matter, taking into consideration the aforesaid report of Probationary Officer in view of mandatory provision of Section 12 of the Act, mandates to give interim custody of juvenile to his guardian unless some adverse material is available against him, which is not placedjjy the prosecution in the case at hand, this revision is allowed. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the Sessions Court as well as by the Trial Court are hereby set aside and the application filed by the applicant under Section 12 of the Act is allowed and applicant is directed to be given in interim custody of his father on bail. It is further directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) by the natural guardian the father of the applicant as well as by the applicant alongwith one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial-cum-Juvenile Court alongwith an undertaking by the guardian of the applicant that on each and every date of the trial, he will produce the applicant before the Court, the applicant-Manju @ Manaklal is directed to be given in interim custody to his father on bail. The revision is allowed as indicated above. The revision is allowed as indicated above. CC as per rules.