Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1517 (MP)

Jogendra Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-11-24

SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA

body2014
ORDER Gupta J. -- 1. Petitioner has preferred this revision under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short “the Act of 2000”) against the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.376/2014, whereby the rejection order of bail application filed under section 12 of the Act of 2000 dated 8.10.2014 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gwalior has been confirmed. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition in brief are that complainant has lodged a report that on 6.9.2014 four unknown perons who were covering their faces entered in the home of complainant and robbed ATM Card, Registration of Motor Cycle, one Mobile and Rs.10,000/-. Report was lodged and Crime No.719/2014 was registered at Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior under sections 458, 380, 395, 398 of IPC, section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and section 25/27 of Arms Act. The petitioner was arrested. 3. Initially father as a natural guardian of the accused/petitioner filed the bail application for grant of his custody before the Juvenile Justice Board under section 12 of the Act, 2000 which was rejected vide order dated 8.10.2014. Against the order dated 8.10.2014 a Criminal Appeal No.376/2014 was preferred by the petitioner which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 17.10.2014. Being aggrieved, this revision petition has been preferred on the ground that the learned Juvenile Board and the learned appellate Court committed error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner/accused, therefore, order of the Board and appellate Court are liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is young boy of 17 years old and if he resides in the judicial custody for long period, he may become an offender and prays for release of the petitioner. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned appellate Court has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the same has not been filed by the natural guardian i.e. father of the petitioner and only on this technical ground dismissal of appeal is not proper. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Udham @ Dinesh v. State of M.P., 2006 (II) MPWN SN 96 and Raj Kuar v. State of M.P., 2008 (1) MPWN 94 . Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Udham @ Dinesh v. State of M.P., 2006 (II) MPWN SN 96 and Raj Kuar v. State of M.P., 2008 (1) MPWN 94 . Learned counsel also submitted that the gravity of offence is not a ground for rejection of bail/custody, therefore, prays to release the petitioner/accused on supurdiginama. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposes the submission and submits that there is clear allegation against the petitioner. He also submits that the allegations against the petitioner is a serious offence and if the petitioner is released, there is every likelihood that he may be exposed to moral or psychological danger. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Section 12 of the Act 2000 reads as under : “12. Bail of juvenile - (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable 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 1 [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.” 7. (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.” 7. The language of section 12 of the Act of 2000 conveys the intention of this legislature to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him and can be defined only in the case where there appears 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 shall defeat the ends of justice. In this context I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the Courts below, FIR of the case as well as the report submitted by the Probation Officer. 8. In the matter of Manoj Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2004 (2) RCC 995, Lal Chand v. State of Rajasthan 2006 (1) RCC 167, Prakash v. State of Rajasthan 2006(1) RCC 337, Udaibhan Singh alias Bablu Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2005(4) Crimes 649 and Rajkumar v. State of M.P. 2008 (1) MPWN Note 94, it has been held by the different High Courts that if there are no allegations that release of delinquent juvenile on bail shall bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release shall defeat the ends of justice, he deserves to be released on bail and merits or nature of the offence has no relevance while considering the bail application of delinquent juvenile. 9. On going through the aforesaid citations the legal position of granting or rejecting bail to a delinquent juvenile is candidly clear. While considering the bail application to juvenile provisions of section 12 of the Act of 2000 should be seen and provisions of bail of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall not govern juvenile’s bail application. Heinousness of offence is also has no relevance while considering the bail matter of a delinquent juvenile. 10. While considering the bail application to juvenile provisions of section 12 of the Act of 2000 should be seen and provisions of bail of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall not govern juvenile’s bail application. Heinousness of offence is also has no relevance while considering the bail matter of a delinquent juvenile. 10. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material, including the report of the Probation Officer to show that the release of the delinquent juvenile on bail is likely to bring him into the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. 11. On going through the impugned order it is revealed that on the basis of Juvenile Board’s order, appellate Court held that if the petitioner is released on bail it would defeat the ends of justice. No reason has been assigned by the appellate Court in the impugned order to arrive at such conclusion that if petitioner is released on bail how it will defeat the ends of justice. 12. The report of the Probation Officer reveals that the petitioner/accused’s conduct is satisfactory and he belongs to a prosperous family. He has no criminal background and there is no likelihood of committing any offence. 13. As per above discussion I am of the opinion that both the Courts below erred in rejecting the petitioner’s bail application. There is no possibility that if petitioner is released on bail, his release shall bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release shall defeat the ends of justice. Impugned order passed by the appellate Court and the orders passed by the Juvenile Board are not sustainable in law and both the Courts below committed jurisdictional error and illegality in passing both the orders. 14. Impugned order passed by the appellate Court and the orders passed by the Juvenile Board are not sustainable in law and both the Courts below committed jurisdictional error and illegality in passing both the orders. 14. Consequently, revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 17.10.2014 passed by appellate Court and the order dated 6.10.2014 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in Crime No.719/2014 are hereby set aside and it is directed that petitioner Jogendra Singh be released on bail on executing a personal bond by his natural guardian father Keshav Singh in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board with the stipulation that on all the subsequent dates of hearing, he shall produce the delinquent juvenile before the said Board or any other Court during pendency of the inquiry and he shall keep proper look after of the juvenile delinquent and keep him away from the company of known criminals. 15. With the aforesaid, revision petition stands disposed of. A. R. Shivhare for petitioner; Lallan Mishra, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.