Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 908 (MP)

Ritesh v. State of M. P.

2011-08-10

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2011
ORDER U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. On behalf of the applicant, this revision is directed under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, in short "the Act" being aggrieved by the order dated 17-6-2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Appeal No. 148/11 dismissing his appeal by affirming the order dated 26-5-2011 passed by the Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Court, Sagar in Criminal Case No. 116/11 dismissing his application for grant of bail as the applicant was taken in custody on dated 26-5-2011 in connection of Crime No. 354/11 registered against him at Police Station Motinagar, Sagar for the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code and section 25/27 of the Arms Act. The charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, as submitted by the applicant's Counsel. Certified copy of the same is also placed on the record. 2. Applicant's Counsel by referring the papers placed on record and also the report of the Probationary Officer contending that it is necessary for the applicant to reside in his family and if he is released on bail, then he may prosecute his study properly and his academic career of the current year would not be destroyed and he will complete his study equal to the other students, said that firstly on taking into consideration the face value of the charge-sheet no offences are made out against the applicant, or in any case the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. In continuation he also said that in view of aforesaid report of Probationary Officer in order to save future welfare and the career of the applicant he should be released on bail under the mandatory provisions of section 12 of the Act. By referring such section, he said that in the lack of any specific evidence or circumstance showing that releasing the applicant on bail shall affect his future welfare and the career the bail could not be refused. On the contrary in view of the aforesaid report of the Probationary Officer the applicant is entitled for extending the benefit of the mandatory provisions of this section and prayed to allow this revision. 3. On the contrary in view of the aforesaid report of the Probationary Officer the applicant is entitled for extending the benefit of the mandatory provisions of this section and prayed to allow this revision. 3. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer with the assistance of the case diary has seriously opposed the prayer of the applicant's Counsel saying that looking to the nature of evidence, the applicant does not deserve for grant of bail and if he is released on bail, then certainly he will be involved again in the criminal activities, by which his future career may be destroyed and prayed for dismissal of the revision.' 4. Having heard the Counsel at length after perusing the case diary and the impugned orders of the Courts below along with other papers placed on record, also the report of Probationary Officer, I am of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to extend the benefit of mandatory provisions of section 12 of the Act for grant of bail, hence by allowing this revision the impugned rejection orders of the Courts below in this regard are hereby set aside and it is directed that on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- by the father of the applicant in accordance with the provision of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 to the satisfaction of the Trial Court the applicant shall be given in the custody of his father, namely Shri Suresh Choubey with a direction that he will produce the applicant before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing. 5. His single non-appearance before the trial Court shall lead to automatic dismissal of this bail order. 6. Accordingly this revision is allowed.