Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 421 (MP)

Ranjeet v. State Of M. P.

2014-04-15

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2014
ORDER : Counsel for the respondent has produced the report received from the Thana Prabhari, Police Station, Neemuch, which indicates that no other criminal case is recorded against the petitioner juvenile and the report of the Probation Officer is also tagged along with the report of the Thana Prabhari. 2. By this criminal revision under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice Act, petitioner-Ranjeet has challenged the order passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Neemuch in Criminal Appeal No. 178/2012 for offence under sections 12 and 52 of the Juvenile Justice Act dismissing the application of the petitioner to be released on bail. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that gravity of the offence is not be the yardstick for release of the accused juvenile on bail. Moreover, Counsel relied on Raj Mohammed alias Raju vs. State of H.P., 2002 Cri.L.J. 2091, whereby the Court had considered even the case of juvenile accused under 18 years of age at the time of commission of offence and he is entitled to the benefit of probation even under section 33 of the Probation of Offenders Act for offence under section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. Counsel also relied on Sarju alias Ramu vs. State of U.P., 2009 Cri.LJ 4123 to state that the accused could be released on probation for offence under section 21 of the NDPS Act. Moreover, Counsel urged that the applicant is now 19 years of age and the trial is likely to take a long time and he is in custody and his career and life is adversely affected. And Counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside and bail be granted to the accused juvenile. 4. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that it was not a case of release on probation, but it was case of release on bail under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Counsel submitted that the petitioner is an under-trial prisoner and cannot be released on probation. Counsel submitted that section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 reads as under :- "12. Counsel submitted that the petitioner is an under-trial prisoner and cannot be released on probation. Counsel submitted that section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) 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 persons 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 (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." 5. Moreover, Counsel submitted that father of the present petitioner is also a co-accused in the case and the Investigating Officer present before this Court has stated that father of the accused applicant is absconding and the release of the petitioner is very likely to bring him into the company of the father and the other co-accused. And, thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not free from exposure to danger both physical and psychological. Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. On considering the above submissions and considering the report of the Probation Officer, I find that the petitioner is a good student and he is in custody and the trial is going on and he is not sent in the Regular Court. Under these circumstances, the petitioner surely deserves to be entitled to receive education. However, I find that the bail cannot be granted to the petitioner; primarily because father of the accused is also a co-accused in the crime and he is still absconding. Moreover, the contraband of commercial quantity of 7 kg. opium is involved in the transaction. However, considering the future of the petitioner and the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, it is directed that the CJM concerned shall take appropriate steps for providing education to the accused juvenile in custody under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 7. Moreover, the contraband of commercial quantity of 7 kg. opium is involved in the transaction. However, considering the future of the petitioner and the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, it is directed that the CJM concerned shall take appropriate steps for providing education to the accused juvenile in custody under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 7. At this juncture, Counsel for the petitioner prays for direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial and complete the same as early as possible. Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent/State. 8. In view of the above, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and complete the same as early as possible preferably within four months from the date of receipt of this order. 9. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of to the extent hereinabove indicated. C.C. as per rules.