Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 168 (MP)

Narayan Sharma v. State of M. P.

2012-02-07

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2012
ORDER (Oral) 1. Whether a juvenile below 18 years of age on the date of offence can be denied bail merely on subjective presumption 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 defeat the ends of justice only because he is involved in a heinous crime, is the only short question that craves for an answer in the present revision petition preferred by the revisionist aggrieved by the concurrent orders of the two Courts below denying him bail under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for brevity, the "Act"). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the above question are that a criminal case under section 302 IPC was registered against the revisionist and his other family members vide Crime No. 30/09 at Police Station Andori, District Bhind with regard to murder of one Makhan Lal Jatav, an MLA from Gohad constituency in the incident that took place on 14th April, 2009. The age of the revisionist that he was below 18 years of age on the date of crime is not in issue as it is admitted by the learned public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and is also so borne out from the impugned orders of the Courts below. Furthermore, a perusal of the impugned orders of the Courts below would show that the revisionist was denied bail as the Courts below formulated an opinion only on the basis of gravity of the crime that his release on bail was likely to bring him into association with known criminals. 3. The learned public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the present revision petition on the ground that the Courts below were justified in drawing a presumption against the revisionist that he may be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger as there is a possibility of his coming in association with known criminals in view of gravity of the crime in which he is involved. According to the learned public prosecutor, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the opinion formulated by the Courts below for denying bail to him under section 12 of the Act. 4. According to the learned public prosecutor, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the opinion formulated by the Courts below for denying bail to him under section 12 of the Act. 4. It shall be relevant and useful to have a quick glimpse on the relevant provisions governing bail to a juvenile in conflict with law as enacted in the Act. Section 12 of the Act deals with such powers of the Board or Courts, it annexe ; "Bail of juvenile : (1) When any person accused of a bailable or nonbailable 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 or 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) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order." 5. What is discernible from the above statutory provision governing bail to a juvenile is that a juvenile in conflict with law should normally be granted bail unless his case falls within one of the exceptions engrafted thereunder and those exceptions are that there appears reasonable grounds for believing 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. Under the aforesaid rider is satisfied, bail to a juvenile should not be refused. It is significant to note that the gravity of the offence or its seriousness alone, divorced from the above exceptional reasons, has not been taken as a rider by the legislature to deny bail to a juvenile in conflict with law. It is only when there is danger to his moral, physical or psychological qualities or likelihood of his attaching himself with criminals or that his release may otherwise defeat the ends of justice, the Board or the Court may not exercise discretion in his favour and enlarge him on bail. For such a determination, no hard and fast rule of inflexible nature can be laid down as it depends on the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. 6. In the opinion of this Court, the Juvenile Justice Board may be justified in denying bail to a juvenile involved in a heinous crime only if there is material before it to form a prima facie opinion on the aspects carved out as exception to rule of bail in section 12 of the Act itself. There must be some mechanism with the Juvenile Justice Board to gather material and form an opinion as to whether the juvenile need to be denied bail by brining his case under the exceptions to bail engrafted in section 12. The opinion to be formed by the Board, by no means, can be subjective and has to be objective. Either the prosecution should place some prima facie material before the Board or the Court to show that release of a juvenile on bail may expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or the Board may obtain a report from the Probation Officer attached to the Board regarding antecedents and circumstances attended to the juvenile, both pre and post crime and it is only thereafter the Board or the Court should crystallised its opinion regarding release or non-release of the juvenile on bail, though involved in a heinous crime. A reference to the statutory provisions governing bail to a juvenile contained in section 12 would show that there is a mandate of law that the juvenile has to be released on bail, except only in those cases where the case falls in one or the other exception engrafted by the legislature in section 12 itself. 7. A reference to the statutory provisions governing bail to a juvenile contained in section 12 would show that there is a mandate of law that the juvenile has to be released on bail, except only in those cases where the case falls in one or the other exception engrafted by the legislature in section 12 itself. 7. A perusal of the impugned orders of the Courts below would show that they do not contain any discussion about the material that might have been collected by the Board before forming an opinion that release of the revisionist on bail would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or bring him into association with known criminals. The opinion formed by the Board as also by the revisional Court appears to be based only presumption and assumption drawn from the gravity of the crime. Such a presumption or assumption has no place in law. Under the circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to set aside the impugned orders of the Courts below as they are not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the Courts below are hereby set aside. This revision is accepted. The Juvenile Justice Board is directed to pass a fresh speaking order on the plea of the revisionist for his bail as per law after hearing his counsel, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three weeks of the receipt of certified copy of this order. This revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Juvenile Justice Board through fax and also by a special messenger by tomorrow for compliance. Sanjay Gupta for revisionist; Prabal Solanki, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.