Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1510 (MP)

Indar Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-11-21

S.K.PALO

body2014
JUDGMENT : S.K. Palo, J. 1. Brief facts just necessary for disposal of this petition is as under: This criminal revision under Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been filed by the mother of juvenile Indar Singh, by which the order dated 30/9/2014 passed by the Third Additional Session Judge, Vidisha in Cr. Appeal No. 187/2014, whereby the order dated 19.9.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board has been affirmed and application for bail of the juvenile conflict with law Indra Singh has been dismissed. 2. Cr. Case No. 303/2014 (State Vs. Indar Singh) has been registered at the Juvenile Justice Board against the juvenile conflict with law Indar Singh under Sections 363, 366, 376, 341 of IPC read with 3/4, 5/6Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. On behalf of juvenile conflict with law an application was filed by the mother for releasing him on bail. The application was decided by the Juvenile Justice Board on 19.9.2014 relying on the report of the Probation Officer that the juvenile in conflict with law is likely to commit similar offence again, as his family has no control over him and he may be likely to engage in criminal activities, which would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. 4. On behalf of the juvenile conflict with law, Misc. Appeal No. 187/2014 was filed by his mother before the ASJ, Vidisha. The learned ASJ vide order dated 30.9.2014, rejected the same held that the appeal has no substance, because the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board decided the application for bail on merits. 5. On behalf of the juvenile conflict with law, his mother has filed this revision petition. 6. The brief facts of the case is that, the mother of the prosecutrix on 20.5.2014 lodged a report at Police Station, Lateri District Vidisha, stating that her minor daughter aged 15 years is missing. When she did not find her daughter she lodged "Gum Insan" report. 7. On investigation, it was found that the juvenile in conflict with law, Indar Singh abducted her. She was recovered from the custody of the juvenile applicant Indar Singh. She was subjected to sexual intercourse by the juvenile applicant. When she did not find her daughter she lodged "Gum Insan" report. 7. On investigation, it was found that the juvenile in conflict with law, Indar Singh abducted her. She was recovered from the custody of the juvenile applicant Indar Singh. She was subjected to sexual intercourse by the juvenile applicant. After recording of her statement, Crime No. 54/14 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 366, 363 of IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides that the juvenile conflict with law be released on bail with or without surety. It is general rule that, if it is found 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 defeat the ends of justice he shall not be released. 9. It is contended that no such finding is there in the order passed by the Principal Judge of Juvenile Justice Board or in the order so passed by the learned ASJ. 10. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Manju @ Manaklal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2012 (1) M.P.H.T 525 and Narayan Sharam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2012 (2) M.P.H.T 274 , 11. On perusal of record, it is discernible from above statutory provisions governing the bail to a juvenile is that juvenile in conflict with law should normally be granted bail unless his case falls within one of the exceptions as narrated in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 12. In the case of Manju @ Manaklal (supra), report of the Probation Officer placed on record was that if the applicant is kept in Observation Centre, he will not be in a position to prosecute his study, consequently his future carrier may be destroyed. He will come into contact with other juvenile offenders involved in serious offences and will affect his future and the same may be jeopardies. Therefore, coordinate Bench of this High Court granted bail and given interim custody to his father. 13. He will come into contact with other juvenile offenders involved in serious offences and will affect his future and the same may be jeopardies. Therefore, coordinate Bench of this High Court granted bail and given interim custody to his father. 13. In the other case, Narayan Sharam (supra) the prosecution did not place prima facie material before the Board or the Court to show that the release of the juvenile on bail would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger nor the Board obtained any report from the Probation Officer attached to the Board regarding antecedents and circumstances attended to the juvenile both pre and post crime. The Board before forming any opinion did not discuss the matter about the applicant. The opinion of the Board and the Court appears to be based only on presumption or assumption drawn from the gravity of the crime. But in the present case, it is completely different the Board has based its finding on the report of the Probation Officer that, the family of the juvenile in conflict with law has no control over him. That being so, if he released from Observation Centre, he would again engage in criminal activities, which would certainly adversely affect his education, expose him to moral physical or psychological danger. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Board or the Court below have erred in passing the impugned order. 14. However, keeping in view that the juvenile conflict with law is in custody since 12.5.2014, therefore, Juvenile Justice Board is directed to expedite his case and decide it as early as possible preferable within a period of six months. 15. This revision petition stands disposed of.