SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(MP) 429

2011 (III) MPWN 22
I. S. Shrivastava, J.
Devendra @ Golu
v.
State of M.P.
Criminal Revision No. 306 of 2011 (I);
Decided on : 24.6.2011.

Advocates appeared:
Yogesh Gupta for applicant;
G.S. Chouhan, Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Headnote:Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 -- 5.12 -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.439 -- bail of juvenile -- applicant is juvenile - no legible ground to believe that he will come into association of known criminal - bail granted. 2008 (I) MPWN 94 and 2001 (I) MPWN 76 relied on. [Para. 5]

       fd‘kksj U;k; ¼ckydksa dh ns[kjs[k vkSj laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 2000 & /kkjk 12 & naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 439 & fd‘kksj dh tekur & vkosnd fd‘kksj gS & ;g fo‘okl djus dk dksbZ Li"V vk/kkj ugha fd og Kkr vijk/kh ds laidZ esa vk,xk & tekur eatwjA 2008 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 94 rFkk 2001 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 76 voyafcrA

       ¼iSjk 5½

ORDER

1. The applicant has filed the copy of the proceedings of the Juvenile Court, Indore along with the statement of the witnesses Ravi (PW-1) to Nagesh (PW-4). It has been prayed by the counsel for the applicant that there is no need to call for the record as he has filed the copy of the relevant proceedings, statements and the challian.

2. Final arguments heard.

3. Applicant Devendra @ Golu is being tried with respect to Crime No. 455 of Police Station Pardeshipura, Indore and chllan has been filed under section 302, 327, 323,147,148 & 149 of the IPC against him. The applicant is juvenile. The prosecution witnesses Ravi (PW-1), Hemraj @ Pappi (PW2). Dev karan (PW-3) and Nagesh (PW-4) have not supported the prosecution case. Trial will take time. The applicant is juvenile. The bail has been refused by the trial Court and by the First Appellate Court vide order dated 8.3.2011 by the Court of Shri Satyendra Joshi, 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. The applicant is juvenile. In the company of other criminals there will be an adverse effect on the character and mentality of the applicant, hence the revision should be allowed.

4. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision and it has been argued that the applicant is an accused of grievous offence.

5. In the case of Raj Kumar v. State of M.P. 2008 (1) MPWN 94, it has been held that, the bail application of juvenile cannot be rejected on the ground of seriousness of crime. There was no ground of believing that he will come into association of known criminals, the bail granted to the juvenile." The similar view was adopted in the case of Rahul Mishra v. State of M.P. 200 I (I) MPWN 76. Since there is no criminal history against the applicant and there is no legible ground to believe that he will come into association of known criminal the applicant is entitled for bail.

6. Considering circumstances and the fact that the applicant Devendra @ Golu is a juvenile, hence he should not be denied bail, the revision petition is allowed and it is ordered that on production of Supurdginama of Rs. 25,000/ - (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) along with surety of the same amount by his father to the satisfaction of Juvenile Court the applicant be released on Supurdgi to his father Shri Santosh Marmat. Therefore, this revision is disposed of accordingly.





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top