Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1382 (MP)

Lakhan Lal v. State of M. P.

2013-11-13

G.S.SOLANKI

body2013
JUDGMENT : G.S. Solanki, J. 1. Heard. This revision has been filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Juvenile Justice Act) read with Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. to release the applicants on bail. 2. As per prosecution, it is alleged that on 19.7.2013 at about 6:00 O'clock, the applicants and co-accused persons are alleged to have assaulted deceased Biharilal. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that it has been specifically alleged that co-accused Vikram had given a danda blow on the head of the deceased, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them. The allegations against applicants are that applicant No. 1 Lakhan Lal pelted the stones on the deceased and applicant No. 2 did not assault the deceased, he assaulted Sirodi Bai, who sustained only one injury. The applicants are minor. The application filed by the applicants under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act has been dismissed by the Juvenile Board being aggrieved thereby the applicants filed an appeal before Sessions Court, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 21.10.2013. Counsel has submitted that the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court have committed illegality in dismissing the application as well as appeal filed by the applicant on the ground that behaviour of father of applicant No. 1 is not proper and the family of applicant No. 2 is not residing in the village, therefore, they may come into the contact of known criminals, therefore, the impugned judgment set aside and applicants be released on supurdginama. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has supported the judgment passed by the appellate Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the judgment passed by the appellate Court. The applicants are not the main accused of the case. The allegations against applicants are that applicant No. 1 Lakhan Lal had pelted the stones on the deceased and applicant No. 2 did not assault the deceased, he assaulted Sirodi Bai, who sustained only one injury. The applicants are minor. The applicants are not the main accused of the case. The allegations against applicants are that applicant No. 1 Lakhan Lal had pelted the stones on the deceased and applicant No. 2 did not assault the deceased, he assaulted Sirodi Bai, who sustained only one injury. The applicants are minor. The appellate Court has dismissed the application filed by the applicants on the basis of the report of Probation Officer which is to the effect that behaviour of father of applicant No. 1 is not proper and the family of applicant No. 2 is not residing in the village, therefore, they may come into the contact of known criminals. If the behaviour of father of applicant No. 1 is not proper and the family of applicant No. 2 has gone out of village for the purpose of earning livelihood, it does not at all mean that the applicant will come into the contact of known criminals. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the Courts below have committed illegality in dismissing the application/appeal filed by the applicants. Consequently, this revision is allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing the supurdginama of Banshi Lal Barela (father of applicant No. 1) and Pappu Barela (father of applicant No. 2) in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Sehore/concerned Magistrate for securing their presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during the pendency of criminal case. Petition allowed.