Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1038 (MP)

Kishore Kunwar Raj v. State of M. P.

2013-09-02

Brij Kishore Dube

body2013
ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short ‘the Act’) has been preferred by the petitioner herein/juvenile against the order dated 17.7.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 72/2013, affirming the order dated 12.7.2013 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ashok Nagar, in connection with Crime No. 109/2013 registered at Police Station Bahodapur, District Ashok Nagar whereby the bail application of the petitioner under section 12 of the Act has been rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6.7.2013 at about 10.00 pm when the prosecutrix aged 12 years, went to attend the call of nature in the field, the accused took her at his field and committed rape on her and kept her with him whole night there. In the morning, the prosecutrix returned back to home. On the way, the accused threatened her to kill his parents, if she disclose the incident to any one. However, the incident was disclosed by the prosecutrix to her parents on 8.7.2013, then a report was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, on which a case at Crime No. 109/2013 under sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 of IPC and 3/4 of the Protection of Children Sexual Harassment Act, 2012 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Bahodapur, District Ashok Nagar. The criminal law was triggered and set in motion. 3. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. An application under section 12 of the Act has been submitted before the Juvenile Justice Board for extending the benefit of bail. The criminal law was triggered and set in motion. 3. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. An application under section 12 of the Act has been submitted before the Juvenile Justice Board for extending the benefit of bail. The learned Juvenile Justice Board considered the application and rejected the same vide order dated 12.7.2013, which reads as under:- **dsl Mk;jh dk voyksdu djus ls ;g fofnr gksrk gS fd Qfj;knh vfiZrk dh vk;q ?kVuk ds le; 12 o”kZ jgh gS vipkjh ckyd djhc 16 o”kZ dk gS ;|fi vkj{kh dsUnz cgknqjiqj }kjk ,slk izdV ugha fd;k x;k gS fd vipkjh ckyd dk Kkr vijk/kh ls lgp;Z esa vkdj mlds uSfrd] ‘kkjhfjd o euksoSKkfud [krjk mRiUu gksxk fdUrq vipkjh ckyd o izkFkhZ ,d gh xkao ds fuoklh gS dfFkr ;kSu ‘kks”k.k ds lekt ds o`f) ds ifjos’k esa ;fn vipkjh ckyd dks tekur ij fjgk fd;k tkrk gS rks ,slh laHkkouk izrhr gksrh gS mlls U;k; dk mn~ns’; foQy gksxkA vLrq izLrqr vkosnu fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA dsl Mk;jh okfil gksA** 4. Being aggrieved thereof, an appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar. The learned Sessions Judge affirmed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile, therefore, as per the provisions of section 12 of the Act, the bail application of a juvenile can only be refused if there appears to be a reasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminals or expose him to moral danger. There is no likelihood that the petitioner would come into the contact of any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral. On ground of seriousness of the offence, the bail application cannot be rejected. The learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board and the learned appellate Court had erroneously rejected the bail application. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the following decisions :- (i) Raj Kumar v. State of M.P., 2008 (I) MPWN 94 ; (ii) Vinod v. State of M.P.; 2008 (III) MPWN 21 ; (iii) Devendra @ Golu v. State of M.P.; 2011 (III) MPWN 22 ; and (iv) Rahul v. State of M.P., 2011 (III) MPWN 97 . 6. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the following decisions :- (i) Raj Kumar v. State of M.P., 2008 (I) MPWN 94 ; (ii) Vinod v. State of M.P.; 2008 (III) MPWN 21 ; (iii) Devendra @ Golu v. State of M.P.; 2011 (III) MPWN 22 ; and (iv) Rahul v. State of M.P., 2011 (III) MPWN 97 . 6. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned orders and while opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is clear allegation of commission of kidnapping and rape in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 161 of CrPC He further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is of commission of an offence, which is an immoral act, therefore, there is reasonable apprehension that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may be exposed to moral or psychological danger to the victim. 7. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it will be useful to quote section 12 of the Act, which reads as under :- “12. Bail of juvenile.— (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailabe 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 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, made 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.” 8. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, made 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.” 8. Admittedly, the petitioner is 15 years of age (date of birth is 7.9.1998) and, therefore, he is a juvenile and consequently, deemed to be a ‘juvenile offender’ within the meaning of the Act. The prosecutrix is also a child (girl) and she is less than 16 years of age (date of birth is 15.6.2002). 9. The petitioner was not granted the bail by the learned Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 12.7.2013 which is quoted here-in-above. From a bare perusal of the order dated 12.7.2013 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, it is apparent that the bail application was rejected on the ground that there is reasonable apprehension that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 10. In Raj Kumar (supra), it has been held by this Court that the bail application of juvenile cannot be rejected on the ground of seriousness of crime. There was no reasonable ground of believing that he will come into association of known criminal, bail should be granted to the juvenile. In Vinod (supra), this Court taking into consideration of the provisions of section 12 (1) of the Act and held as under:- “7. From perusal of the record it appears that the application has been dismissed on the ground that father of the petitioner is having no control over the petitioner. In case the petitioner is released on bail, then petitioner shall remain involved along with anti-social elements. 8. There is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be said that the apprehension of learned Courts below was just and proper. The petitioner is juvenile. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the view that the learned Courts below committed error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.” 11. There is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be said that the apprehension of learned Courts below was just and proper. The petitioner is juvenile. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the view that the learned Courts below committed error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.” 11. In Devendra @ Golu (supra), this Court held that since there is no criminal history against the applicant and there is no legal ground to believe that he will come into association of known criminal, the applicant is entitled for bail. While in Rahul (supra), this Court held that the bail application of juvenile cannot be rejected on the ground of seriousness of the crime. 12. The aforesaid decisions are not helpful to the petitioner as the application for bail of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the petitioner on bail would defeat the ends of justice. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons given here-in-above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders that may call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 53 of the Act. This revision petition is devoid of any merit and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.