Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sushil Kumar Gupta, J.
Jogendra Singh —Petitioner
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh —Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 869/2014
Decided on 24.11.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Shri A.R. Shivhare, Advocate.
For the Respondent: State by Shri Lallan Mishra, Panel Lawyer.
IMPORTANT POINT
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.
Headnote:Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000—Section 12—Petitioner juvenile detained in a case registered under Sections 458, 380, 395, 398 IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act—Bail application dismissed by Juvenile Board holding that his release would defeat ends of justice—Appeal dismissed by Sessions Court—Revision—Heinousness of offence has no relevance while considering bail of delinquent juvenile—Prosecution has to bring or record material to show that release of juvenile would defeat ends of jutice—No reasons were assigned by Courts below as to how release of petitioner on bail would defeat ends of justice—Bail deserved to be granted.
Held: 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.
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.
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. 1 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.
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.
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. (Paras 9 to 13)
Result: Revision allowed.
ORDER
Sushil Kumar Gupta, J.— 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 persons who were covering their faces entered in the home of complainant and robbed ATM Card, Registration of Motorcycle, 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 M.P.D.V.P.K. 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 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 [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 in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in
