Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 688 (MP)

Rahul v. State of M. P.

2011-06-28

I.S.SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
ORDER 1. Preliminary arguments for admission of the revision heard. 2. Revision is admitted for final hearing. 3. It has been argued by the counsel for the appellant that the record of the trial Court is not required for the disposal of this revision because he has filed the copy of the challan. 4. Final arguments heard. 5. This revision has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.4.2011 in Cr A. No. 206/11 passed by the Court of Shri Satyendra Joshi, 18thAdditional Sessions Judge, Indore by which the appeal has been dismissed against the order of the Juvenile Court, dated 20.4.2011 passed in Cr. Case No. 212/2011, by which the custody of the juvenile Rahul to his father was denied. 6. Applicant Rahul is being tried with respect to Crime No.1 078/1 0 of Police Station Chandan Nagar, Indore and challan has been filed under sections 307/34, 195 A and 114 of the IPC against him. 7. According to the prosecution case, on 25.2.2010, at about 8.00 p.m., accused Madhav, Rahul and Ballu reached the house of Malti Birthare and said to her to compromise in the pending case. Madhav was talking to Malti arrogantly and said that if she will not compromise then he will kill her and her husband. Malti cried, at that time, Madhav with the intention to kill her fired three times on her which caused bleeding injury and thereafter the accused persons ran away. Hence, on report the above offence was registered and the applicant was arrested. The challan was filed against the applicant before the Juvenile Court. As the age of the applicant Rahul was below 17 years, the trial Court dismissed his application for Supurdgi of the applicant to his father. Hence, an appeal was preferred which has been dismissed at Cr.A. No. 206/11 by the Court of Shri Satyendra Joshi, 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, vide order dated 26.4.2011. 8. It has been argued by the applicant that according to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act the applicant was entitled for bail and the Court has not appreciated the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act in proper perspective. There was no previous record against the applicant and there is no possibility that he will be in association of the known criminals, hence this revision should be allowed. 9. There was no previous record against the applicant and there is no possibility that he will be in association of the known criminals, hence this revision should be allowed. 9. Counsel for the respondents has opposed the revision and it has been argued that the revision is baseless, hence it should be dismissed. 10. In the case of Raj Kumar v. State of M.P., 2008 (1) MPWN 94 , it has been held that, "the bail application of juvenile cannot be rejected on the ground of seriousness of crime. There was no ground of believing that he will come into association of known criminals if the bail granted to the juvenile." The similar view was adopted in the case of Rahul Mishra v. State of M.P., 2001 (I) MPWN 76. Since there is no criminal history against the applicant and there is no legible ground to believe that he will into association of known criminal the applicant is entitled for bail. 11. Considering circumstances and the fact that the applicant Rahul is a juvenile, hence he should not be denied bail, the revision petition is allowed and it is ordered that on production of Supurdginama of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) along with surety of the same amount by his father to the satisfaction of Juvenile Court the applicant Rahul be released on Supurdgi to his father Shri Gulabsingh till the disposal of the trial. Therefore, this revision is disposed of accordingly.