Back
2023 Supreme(MP) 824
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J.
MAHESH RAO s/o RAMESHWAR – Appellant
vs.
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent
Cri. Rev. No. 755 of 2023
Decided on : 21-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Abhay Saraswat
For the Respondent: Sudhanshu Vyas
The gravity of the offense alone cannot be the sole consideration for denying bail to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Headnote:
Bail - Juvenile Justice - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section 102 - Section 101 - Section 12 - Section 302, 201, 120-B of Indian Penal Code
Fact of the Case:
The minor applicant was accused of serious offenses and his bail application under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act was rejected by the Principal Magistrate and the ASJ. The applicant's father filed a revision under section 102 of the Act, seeking bail for the minor.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the gravity of the offense alone cannot be the sole consideration for denying bail to a juvenile. The Court considered the report of the Probation Officer, the minor's conduct, and family support, and granted bail with strict conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the minor accused should be granted bail under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act despite being accused of serious offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the intention of the legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offense alleged, and bail can be declined only in specific circumstances as outlined in section 12(1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision and directed the release of the accused juvenile on bail with strict conditions.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Revision is filed under section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2000), being aggrieved by the order passed by First ASJ, Mandsaur, District - Mandsaur (M. P.) in Criminal Appeal No. 410/2023 vide order dated 23-1-2023 dismissed the appeal of the applicant filed under section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act affirming the order of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mandsaur whereby the application under section 12 of The Act, 2000.
2. The minor is an accused in crime No. 345/2022, for commission of offences under section 302, 201, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station-Daloda, District-Mandsaur. On behalf of accused Krish Rao being a minor person his father Mahesh Rao filed an application under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act before Juvenile Justice Board (in short JJB) which was rejected by the Principal Magistrate, Mandsaur by order dated 16-1-2023. The applicant father filed an appeal under section 101 of The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 before the ASJ, Mandsaur. By the impugned order, the said Appeal has also been rejected.
3. In a nutshell the facts of the case are that, on 8-10-2022 first information report was lodged by complainant Suresh at Police Station Daloda, in which it was stated that on 22-9-2022 present applicant and co-accused Anand Patidar and Deepak Malviya had taken deceased Vasudev Darji on a motorcycle. It was further alleged that, Vasudev Darji had love affair with the sister of co-accused Anand Patidar. According to further case of prosecution, in a Khandar near Saraswati School Krishi Mandi, applicant and co-accused apprehended Vasudev Darji and co-accused Anand Patidar gave 4-5 knife blows on his chest and thereby caused his death. On the above, all the culprits including present applicant were arrested and as applicant was below the age of 18 years was produced before JJB, Mandsaur and has been lodged in Child Care Home.
4. The applicant through his father moved an earlier application under section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015 before JJB for granting bail to applicant, a child in conflict with law, which was dismissed and appeal No. 175/22 filed against order of JJB was also dismissed on 28-11-2022 on its virtues and vices.
5. The applicant through his father moved second application before JJB for releasing child in conflict with law on bail. The application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 16-1-2023 by JJB, Mandsaur, hence this appeal filed under section 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that, child in conflict with law has falsely been implicated in which he is in observation home since 9-10-2022. He has further submitted that co-accused Mukesh Patidar has been released on bail by this Court itself vide order dated 11-1-2023 passed on Bail Application No. 36/23. On the above, it is submitted that, appeal be allowed and child in conflict with law be released on bail for which his father is ready to furnish bonds directed by this Court.
7. This Court vide order dated 22-2-2023 called a report of Probation Officer. As per the report of the Probation Officer, the conduct of the applicant in the Child Care Home is good and his family members are in position to have control over him. It is further submitted that he is studying in class 10th. He recommended for consideration of the case on the basis of the recommendation. The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the Principal Magistrate and the Revisional Court, only considering the heinous offence of murder, which could not be sole consideration for rejecting the application.
8. Counsel for the State supports the orders impugned and submits that Court rightly rejected the application for grant of bail, however, does not dispute the report of the Probation Officer.
9. Before cons
