Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 104 (MP)

Pradumna v. State of M. P.

2015-01-28

RAJENDRA MAHAJAN

body2015
Judgment Rajendra Mahajan, J. 1. Applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short "the Act") against the order dated 9-12-2014 passed by the Court of Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Appeal No. 585/2014, Pradumna Vs. State of M.P. through P.S. Padmakar Nagar, Sagar, affirming the order dated 3-12-2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sagar (for short "the J.J. Board") rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 334/2014, registered at P.S. Padmakar Nagar against him and other accused persons under Section 8 read with Section20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act"). Intrinsic facts for the purpose of this revision are as follows:-- 1.1. On 10-11-2014, the police of Police Station, Padmakar Nagar got a tip-off that in a white car make Maruti Swift Desire, bearing registration No. MP-15-CA-7406, a huge quantity of Ganja is being transported illegally. Thereupon, the police force reached the spot and cordon the car off. Upon the search of the car, a' total of 148 kg Ganja worth ` 12 lacs was found keeping in the boot of car in the packets and gunny bags. The police arrested all the six occupants of the car including the applicant and his brother-Deepak. On completion of requisite formalities at the spot, the FIR of the crime on the same day was lodged by Sub-Inspector, Sneha Mishra, who led the force. The case was registered as Crime No. 334/2014 against all the six occupants of the car under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the NDPS Act. During the investigation, the applicant was found a juvenile, therefore, his case was put up before the J.J. Board. 1.2. On behalf of the applicant, a bail application under Section 12 of the Act was moved before the J.J. Board. It dismissed the bail application vide order dated 3-12-2014. Feeling aggrieved by the order, an appeal was filed under Section 52 of the Act, which was also dismissed by the impugned order. 1.3. 1.2. On behalf of the applicant, a bail application under Section 12 of the Act was moved before the J.J. Board. It dismissed the bail application vide order dated 3-12-2014. Feeling aggrieved by the order, an appeal was filed under Section 52 of the Act, which was also dismissed by the impugned order. 1.3. It may be worth mentioning here that the Appellate Court had dismissed the bail application vide impugned order on two counts, first, that the consumption of intoxicating substances among young generation has been rising alarmingly causing adverse impact upon the society and, second, that the applicant belongs to a family having criminal antecedents. 1.4. Hence, this revision. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that at the relevant time the applicant was a student of 9th Class. He was traveling in the car with his brother-Deepak without knowing that in the car, Ganja was being carried illegally, thus, he is totally innocent. There is no prima facie evidence against him to connect him with the alleged crime. He further submitted that the Probation Officer has given a report, recommending the applicant release on bail. He still further submitted that the learned Appellate Judge passed the impugned order, overlooking the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. 3. Per contra learned Panel Lawyer supported the impugned order. 4. It shall be relevant and useful to refer to first the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, which provides for the release of a juvenile on bail during the pendency of a case against him. The provisions read thus:- "Bail of juvenile.--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 or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit persons 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. From the perusal, it appears that the language employed in enacting the above provisions is plain, clear and unambiguous, hence, there is no difficulty in understanding the intent of the legislature behind it. The following may be called out on perusal of the section:-- "(i) That, the provisions are independent of general provisions of bail enshrined in Sections 437 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. (ii) That, the factors such as, heinousness, seriousness, severity gravity of crime(s) are no grounds for rejection of bail. (iii) That the bail of a juvenile can only be rejected on the grounds, namely,-- (a) If there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of a juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal. The purport of the expression reasonable grounds is that the grounds must be based on some sorts of evidence/facts and mere apprehension of the concerned Court is not enough, or (b) Expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger. The conditions mentioned in (a) and (b) are in the interest and welfare of a juvenile. Hence, these two conditions must be considered in favour of a juvenile at the time of dealing with the bail application, or (c) That his release would defeat the ends of justice. This expression does not relate even obliquely to the seriousness or heinousness of the crime. The tenor of the expression in the context of the section must be confined to the point that how far it will be the possibility to bring a juvenile to the justice if he is released on bail. In case, he goes absconding, then the ends of justice will be certainly defeated otherwise not." 6. Thus, it is a mandate of the section that the relief of bail can be denied to a juvenile only when any one of the above mentioned conditions goes against him otherwise he is entitled to be released on bail. 7. From the perusal of impugned order, it is found that the learned Judge has been greatly influenced by the adverse impact upon the society for rising consumption of intoxicating substances among the younger generation instead of considering the provisions of the section in true spirit. 7. From the perusal of impugned order, it is found that the learned Judge has been greatly influenced by the adverse impact upon the society for rising consumption of intoxicating substances among the younger generation instead of considering the provisions of the section in true spirit. From the records, it appears that the father of the applicant is dead, except the present case, no case against the applicant nor his brother-Deepak under the NDPS Act is pending and that neither he nor his brother-Deepak was previously prosecuted for any offence under the NDPS Act. As per the record and the impugned order, a criminal case against the applicant's brother-Deepak was registered under Sections 327, 294, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. and a criminal case against the applicant's mother was registered under Sections 498-A, 458, 294, 506, 500, 34 and 452 of the I.P.C. The aforesaid offences are ordinary ones considering their rural and illiteracy backgrounds. Hence, the learned Judge has drawn wrong conclusion that the applicant belongs to a family having criminal antecedents. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court has called for the report of the Probation Officer as to the prospects of release of the applicant on bail. He strongly recommends the release of the applicant on bail. In the case of Ritesh Vs. State of M.P., 2011 (4) M.P.H.T. 248 , this Court released the juvenile on getting a favourable report from the Probation Officer. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on the report of the Probation Officer as well. 9. In view of the above discussion, this revision is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a Supurdaginama in the sum of ` 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the J.J. Board for his appearance before it. The Supurdaginama may be furnished either mother or any close relative of the applicant. 10. It is further directed that it shall be duty of the Supurdagigar to produce the applicant before the Juvenile Justice Board, Sagar as and when directed by it. He/she shall take proper care that the applicant does not come into the contact of any person of criminal background. Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of.