Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 159 (MP)

Pooja Jatav v. State of M. P.

2015-02-05

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER 1. This is the first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of CrPC filed on behalf of the applicant-Ku. Pooja Jatav. 2. The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No.609/2014 registered at Police Station Civil Line district Morena for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366, 376D and 120B of IPC and section 4 and 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 26.11.2014, the complainant Badan Singh lodged a report at Police Station Civil Line, Morena that his 16 years old daughter was abducted by one Radhe s/o Krishna Jatav enticing to marry her. The prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of the accused Radhe on 29.11.2014. Therefore, the crime was registered. 4. On behalf of the applicant, it is stated that the applicant is a student of class 9th and has been implicated in false case. Her name is not reflected in the FIR. She is not at all involved in the abduction of the prosecutrix. As per the applicant, her date of birth is 6.8.2001. She has filed the copy of mark-sheet of 2010-11 issued by Primary School, Morena and copy of scholar register, in which at Serial No.6 and Scholar No.294, her name is found entered and the date of birth is shown as 6.8.2001. As per these records, the applicant is 13 years 3 months and 20 days old on the date of incident. 5. On behalf of the State, the application is opposed. 6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sheela Barse v. Union of India reported in AIR 1986 SC 1773 , held that “Children should not be kept in jail. They should be kept in remand homes and observation homes where children can be lodged pending investigation and trial.” Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (For brevity “the Act”) has been enacted for the benefit of juvenile delinquent. section 12(1) of 'the Act' reads as follows :- “12. They should be kept in remand homes and observation homes where children can be lodged pending investigation and trial.” Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (For brevity “the Act”) has been enacted for the benefit of juvenile delinquent. section 12(1) of 'the Act' reads as follows :- “12. Bail to 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 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.” 7. On perusal of this provision, it is clear that the bail application of a juvenile can be entertained by the Juvenile Board only when he/she is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before the Board, application for bail can be entertained. On filing such application, after the juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before the Board then certainly the application under section 12 of 'the Act' has to be decided by the Board. 8. The word “appears” has been used in section 12 of 'the Act'. However, the same has not been defined. But the word “appears” has the same meaning that has been used in section 437(1) of CrPC. The words “is brought” are used to signify arrest in obedience to process of Court. When a person appears in a Court, his/her physical presence results in placing himself/herself in custody of Court for the purpose of releasing him/her on bail. Thus, meaning of the word “appears” used in section 12 of 'the Act' has the same meaning as used in section 437(1) of CrPC. 9. When a person appears in a Court, his/her physical presence results in placing himself/herself in custody of Court for the purpose of releasing him/her on bail. Thus, meaning of the word “appears” used in section 12 of 'the Act' has the same meaning as used in section 437(1) of CrPC. 9. In an earlier judgment of this Court of Nagendra alias Pradeep Singh v. State of M.P. reported in 2002(II) MPWN 123, this Court observed that :- “Criminal P.C., 1973 – S.438 – case under Ss.302, 452, 147/149, IPC – applicant claiming to be juvenile – entitled to bail till factum of being juvenile or otherwise is proved.” 10. In Abdul Rab alia Laddu v. State of Bihar reported in (2008)17 SCC 475, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that :- “Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S.436 – Bail – Juvenile accused – On a prima facie satisfaction, that the accused was a juvenile on the date of the offence direction issued to release him on bail subject to further enquiry regarding his age – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, S.7A. 11. In the present case prima facie satisfaction, the applicant appears to have been a juvenile on the date of offence and her case is covered under section 7(A) of 'the Act'. 12. Therefore, the Chief Judical Magistrate, Morena is directed to release the applicant on bail to his satisfaction, subject to further enquiry regarding her age on the date of the offence and if the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena is subsequently satisfied that the applicant is a juvenile, appropriate orders may be passed in the matter as far as she is concerned to refer her case to the Juvenile Justice Board. 13. It is also made clear that the observations made above in this order are purely prima facie in nature for the disposal of this application only. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena is directed to determine the age of the applicant without taking into consideration the observations made above as regarding her age. 14. With the above observations, this application is disposed of. D.S. Tomar for applicant; Ms. Chitra Saxena, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.