Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak, J.
Child In Conflict With Law v. State of M. P. & Another
Criminal Revision No. 3000 of 2021 (Gwalior): against the judgment dated 29.6.2016 passed by the X Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 328/2016;
Decided on 7.4.2022
(1) Interpretation of Statute -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is a beneficial legislation -- attracts fundamental rule of interpretation of statute -- it must be construed or interpreted so as to advance cause of legislation for benefit of subject -- not to frustrate its intendment. (2005) 3 SCC 551 followed. [Para 18
(2) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -- Ss. 12, 102 r/w S. 8 (2) and 1 (4) -- words “or otherwise” in S. 8 (2) -- High Court (and Children's Court) given powers of suo motu cognizance by inserting words “or otherwise” in S. 8 (2) -- words “or otherwise” would therefore include bail plea filed before High Court as proceeding of first instance, otherwise than as appeal or revision from order of JJ Board (or Children's Court) -- rule of ejusdem generis would not apply. [Para 19
(3) Interpretation of Statute -- rule of ejusdem generis -- is attracted where restricted meaning is given to general word accompanying specific word, only when intended by legislature. AIR 1960 SC 610 and 1957 SCR 721 followed. [Para 19
(4) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 439 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -- Ss. 12, 101, 102 and 1 (4) -- bail -- S. 1 (4) of Act gives it overriding effect -- High Court may entertain bail plea as if it is a proceeding of first instance -- however, it would be considered on parameters of S. 12 of Act. 2019 SCC Online (CG) 24, 2021 (1) MPLJ (Cri.) 403 and Bail Application No. 2510 of 2020 decided on 19.10.2020 (Del.) relied on. [Paras 16, 24 & 27
(5) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -- S. 12 -- bail -- bail rejected by JJ Board, appellate authority and even by High Court under revisional jurisdiction -- another revision by way of repeat bail application can be considered by High Court under revisional jurisdiction without coming through hierarchical set up again and again -- same is applicable for child in conflict with law sent up for trial as adult before Children's Court. [Paras 25 & 26
(6) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -- S. 12 -- bail -- applicant earlier released on bail -- misused liberty and committed another offence subsequent to this case -- bail cancelled -- fresh bail application rejected -- revision -- held -- petitioner must involve in reparative and reformative mode -- for course correction, application rejected. [Para 28
¼1½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && fd'kksj U;k; ¼ckydksa dh ns[kjs[k vkSj laj{k.k½ vfèkfu;e] 2015 fgrizn fo/kku gS && fof/k ds fuopZu dk ewy fu;e vkÑ"V djrk gS && bldk vFkkZUo;u ;k fuoZpu bl izdkj fd;k tkuk vko';d gS fd mlds v/khu vkus okys O;fDr;ksa ds Qk;ns ds fy, fo/kku dk fgr vxzlj gks && mldk vk'k; fu"Qy djus ds fy, ughaA ¼2005½3 ,l lh lh 551 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 18
¼2½ fd'kksj U;k; ¼ckydksa dh ns[kjs[k vkSj laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 2015 && /kkjk 12] 102 lgifBr /kkjk 8¼2½ rFkk 1¼4½ && /kkjk 8¼2½ esa 'kCn ß;k vU;FkkÞÞ var% LFkkfir dj mPp U;k;ky; ¼vkSj ckyd U;k;ky;½ dks Loizsj.kk ls laKku dh 'kfDr nh xbZ gS && vr% 'kCn ß;k vU;FkkÞ esa mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k tekur vfHkokd~ fd'kksj U;k; cksMZ ¼vFkok ckyd U;k;ky;½ ds vkns'k dh vihy ;k iqujh{k.k ls fHkUu] izFke ckj dh dk;Zokgh ds :i esa lfEefyr gksxk && ltkfr dk fu;e ykxw ugha gksxkA ¼iSjk 19
¼3½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && ltkfr dk fu;e && og¡k vkÑ"V gksrk gS tgk¡ fofufnZ"V 'kCn ls tqM+s gq, vke 'kCn dks lhfrr vFkZ fn;k tkrk gS] dsoy tc foèkku eaMy }kjk vk'kf;r gksA , vkb vkj 1960 ,l lh 610 rFkk 1957 ,l lh vkj 721 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 19
¼4½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 439 && fd'kksj U;k; ¼ckydksa dh ns[kjs[k vkSj laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 2015 && /kkjk 12] 101] 102 rFkk 1¼4½ && tekur && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 1 ¼4½ mls v/;kjksgh izHkko nsrh gS && mPp U;k;ky; tekur vfHkokd~ bl izdkj xzg.k dj ldrk gS tSls fd og izFke ckj dh dk;Zokgh gks && rFkkfi] ml ij vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 ds ekunaMksa ds vuqlkj fopkj fd;k tk,xkA 2019 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ¼N-x-½ 24] 2021¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts ¼fØ-½ 403 rFkk tekur vkosnu Ø- 2510 lu~ 2020 fu.khZr fnukad 19-10-2020 ¼fnYyh½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 16] 14 ,oa 27
¼5½ fd'kksj U;k; ¼ckydksa dh ns[kjs[k vkSj laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 2015 && /kkjk 12] && tekur && fd'kksj U;k; cksMZ] vihy izkf/kdkjh rFkk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh iqujh{k.k vf/kdkfjrk ds v/khu tekur ukeatwj && iqu% izLrqr tekur vkosnu ds :i esa ,d vU; iqujh{k.k ij mPp U;k;ky; }kjk] ckj&ckj vf/kØe LFkkiu ds ek/;e ls vk, fcuk] iqujh{k.k vf/kdkfjrk ds v/khu fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS && ;g ckyd U;k;ky; ds le{k izkIro; ds :i esa fopkj.k ds fy, izsf"kr fof/k dk mYya?ku djus okys ckyd dks ykxw gksrk gSA ¼iSjk 25 ,oa 26
¼6½ fd'kksj U;k; ¼ckydksa dh ns[kjs[k vkSj laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 2015 && /kkjk 12 && tekur && vkosnd iwoZ esa tekur ij NksM+k x;k && Lokra=~; dk nq#i;ksx fd;k rFkk bl izdj.k ds i'pkr~ ,d vU; vijk/k fd;k && tekur jí gqbZ && uohu tekur vkosnu ukeatwj && iqujh{k.k && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && ;kph dks izk;f'pr vkSj lq/kkj esa yxuk gksxk && iFk'kqf) gsrq vkosnu ukeatwjA ¼iSjk 28
ORDER
1. The instant criminal revision under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is being filed, assailing the order dated 29.6.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 328/2016 by Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior rejecting appeal of petitioner and affirming the order dated 14.6.2016 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gwalior in Case No. 117/2016; whereby, the application of petitioner for grant of bail was rejected.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that an FIR dated 14.2.2016 bearing Crime No. 95/2016 for offence under section 147, 149, 302, 396, 307 of IPC, 25/27 of Arms Act and section 13 of MPDVPK Act was registered by Police Station Gole Ka Mandir against the present petitioner as well as some other accused persons on the basis of allegations that petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons intercepted the complainant, who was going to attend some programme alongwith two companions Mangal Singh and Shankar Singh (deceased), they were looted by the accused persons. Thereafter, accused opened fire over the complainant party in which Shankar Singh died due to fire arm injury.
3. Since at the time of alleged incident, petitioner was below 18 years of age, therefore, came under the ambit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (for short “JJ Act”) and under guardianship of father invoked the jurisdiction under section 12 of the JJ Act for grant of bail by way of application before learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gwalior (for short “JJ Board”), which was dismissed vide order dated 14.6.2016.
4. Meanwhile, an assessment of petitioner was made as per section 15 of the JJ Act and his mental age was ordered to be tried as adult in the children Court.
5. Being aggrieved by order of JJ Board; whereby, the application under section 12 of JJ Act was rejected, petitioner preferred an appeal before the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior under section 101 of JJ Act, which was rejected vide order dated 29.6.20916. Against the said order, petitioner preferred revision vide No. 683/2016 before this Court and vide interim order dated 17.8.2016 in an application filed in Criminal Revision, custody of petitioner was given to his father as an interim measure. Since no purpose remained further, therefore, vide order dated 11.1.2017, criminal revision was withdrawn, meaning thereby, petitioner kept enjoying liberty.
6. It further appears from the record that petitioner misused the liberty, therefore, complainant sought cancellation of bail of present petitioner and therefore, petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. was preferred by the complainant and vide order dated 26th October, 2017 in M.Cr.C.No. 5717/2017, petition was allowed and earlier order dated 17.8.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 683/2016 was recalled and petitioner was ordered for confinement. It appears that thereafter, he could not be apprehended and ultimately on 3.6.2021, he came under custody. Since then, he is suffering confinement.
7. It is the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner at the time of incident was juvenile and was a child in conflict with law as per section 2 (13) of JJ Act. He had no direct role to play in the commission of crime and his role was confined to snatch the weapon from the complainant. Material prosecution witnesses have been examined and therefore, chance of tampering with evidence/witnesses is remote. His trial is conducted as per provisions of JJ Act, therefore a chance be given to him to reform himself and he undertakes to perform community service as per the provisions of section 18 (1) (c),19 and 20 of JJ Act.
8. Petitioner raised the legal question that initially an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C was preferred by the petitioner before the trial Court and vide order dated 3.6.2021, his application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. got dismissed. Thereafter, challenging the said order, he preferred ano
The main legal point established is that the bail application of a juvenile accused of a heinous offence should be governed by Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the court has the auth....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, particularly Section 15 and 18, in bail applications for children in conflic....
Section 12 of Act provides that a juvenile who is brought before Board shall be released on bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Juvenile Justice Board must consider the mandatory provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and make an objective assessment based on reason....
The gravity of the offence should not be a hindrance to refuse bail to a delinquent juvenile, but the nature of the crime, conduct of the accused, and the ends of justice should be considered while e....
Bail for juveniles under the Juvenile Justice Act is mandatory unless there are justifiable grounds for denial.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
