Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1564 (MP)

Mintu v. State of M. P.

2014-12-01

M.K.MUDGAL

body2014
JUDGMENT : M.K. Mudgal, J. 1. The applicant-accused has filed the criminal revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') being aggrieved by the order dated 7.8.2014 passed by the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No. 253/2014 affirming the order dated 30.7.2014 passed by the Court of learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Chhatarpur in Criminal Case No. 145/2014 dismissing an application filed by the applicant- accused under Section 12 of the Act for grant of bail. 2. As per the prosecution story, the applicant-accused alongwith co-accused person having common intention to commit murder of Shahid caused stab injuries to him by knife which resulted into his death. An FIR of Crime No. 212/2014, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered at Police Station, Chhatarpur. After investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed. An application under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the applicant-accused being a juvenile for grant of bail. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 30.7.2014 by the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Board, Chhatarpur. The Criminal Appeal No. 253/2014 filed by the applicant- accused was dismissed vide impugned order dated 7.8.2014. 3. Learned senior counsel assailing the legality and propriety of the impugned order and placing reliance upon the para 12 of the judgment dated 2.9.2013 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 584/2013 (Kishore Kunwar Raj vs. State of M.P.) has submitted that the learned appellate court as well as the trial court both have committed an error of law in dismissing the application filed by the applicant-accused for grant of bail on the ground of heinousness of the offence. As per Section 12 of the Act, a juvenile delinquent should be normally released on bail unless any one of the three grounds which read as under: “(i) if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or (ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or (iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.” is likely to be involved in the case to reject the application as held in the judgment of this court in the case of Rahul Mishra vs. State of MP, 2001 MPWN Vol. I Note 76. 4. I Note 76. 4. The counsel further inviting the attention of this court to paras 17 to 19 of the impugned order has pleaded that the appellate court has rejected the application holding that the murder was committed in extremely brutal manner indicating the extremely cruel and criminal nature of the applicant accused. The said finding recorded by the learned appellate court for rejection of the application is not in consonance with the spirit of the Section 12 of the Act. The counsel further argues that in the instant case there are no circumstances on record indicating that if the applicant-accused is released on bail he would come in association with the criminal or he would expose himself to moral or physical or psychological danger as the applicant-accused after being released on bail would live safely with his family under the control of his guardian. The counsel further contends that so far as the third ground is concerned it is not made out in this case as the applicant-accused neither would abscond from the jurisdiction of this court or would interfere with the course of justice. Hence, in the said circumstances, the applicant- accused be released on bail and be handed over to his guardian for proper safe custody. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-accused has submitted that the findings recorded by the learned appellate court as well as by the trial court are just and proper. If the applicant-accused is granted bail, he would influence the witnesses of the case and considering the character of the applicant-accused and the circumstances in which he committed the brutal murder, no witness would come forward to depose his statement before the trial court, owing to which, in order to secure the end of justice, this revision filed by the applicant- accused be dismissed. 6. Arguments were considered. 7. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the applicant- accused was more than 16 years of age at the time of commission of the crime. It is true that the bail application of a juvenile offender cannot be decided and rejected on the ground of seriousness of the offence as per Section 12 of the Act and as observed in the judgment of this Court in Kishore Kunwar Raj vs. State of M.P. (Supra). It is true that the bail application of a juvenile offender cannot be decided and rejected on the ground of seriousness of the offence as per Section 12 of the Act and as observed in the judgment of this Court in Kishore Kunwar Raj vs. State of M.P. (Supra). It would not be proper to reject the bail application of the accused on the ground the appellate court has rejected it. It is also correct that there is no evidence on record indicating that if the accused is released on bail he would associate with the known criminal or expose himself to moral, physical or psychological danger. In this manner, the application of the applicant accused cannot be rejected on the first two grounds referred to earlier but, however, so far as the third ground is concerned his being at large would defeat the end of justice from a comprehensive point of view by his being put in a position to scar the witnesses from coming forward for having their evidence recorded and the case being adjudged properly. As per allegations, the dire cruelty with which he committed the murder in public place and in broad day light by causing 24 injuries to the deceased must have put terror in the hearts of the witnesses and it would be natural for them not to come forward for giving evidence if the applicant-accused is at large. This cannot but defeat the end of justice. 8. Keeping the above consideration in view, it would not be proper to interfere in the impugned order for not releasing the applicant-accused on bail. Therefore, the revision is hereby dismissed.