IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
Juvenile X - Appellant
Vs
The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
CRA No. 818 of 2024
Decided On : 21-09-2024
JUDGMENT :
Heard on IA No.8785/2024, which is the second application for suspension of jail sentence filed under section 389 of Cr.P.C.
2. The present appeal is filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred as Act) against the order of conviction under Section 302 of IPC for 7 years RI with fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine, 3 months RI; under Section 201 of IPC for 3 years RI with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of 2 months RI passed by 4th ASJ, Juvenile Court, Dist. Shajapur by judgment dated 21.12.2023 in SPST No.41/2021 arising out of Crime No. 171/2021.
3. The earlier application for suspension of sentence was rejected by the order dated 10.04.2024, considering the report of the Probation Officer in which it was stated that the applicant’s father works as a chowkidar and has a habit of consuming alcohol, while the applicant’s mother is a housewife, both of whom are unable to look after him. Additionally, the applicant has an unmarried sister, Shivani. The report also reflects that the applicant is unemployed and faces financial difficulties, with the family consisting only of his parents and unmarried sister. Considering the same, the application was rejected on the ground that there is no adult member in the family to have proper supervision and control over the child in conflict with the law (In short ‘CICL’)
4. The present application is filed on the ground that the said order was passed on the basis of the report of the Probation Officer and on consideration of the seriousness of the offence committed by the applicant. He argues that the said report was incorrect stating that the applicant is unemployed. Alongwith the application, he has filed a letter issued by the employer R.K Kitchen Mansion certifying that the applicant was employed with them from 31.12.2021 to 19.12.2023 and was earning. Thus the report of the Probation Officer was incorrect and the seriousness of the offence or manner of commission of offence alone cannot be sole consideration for considering an application for bail or suspension of sentence. In support of his submission he referred to the decision of this court in the case of Criminal Revision No.755/2023 Mahesh Rao V. State of Madhya Pradesh, Dated 21/03.2023. Therefore the case of the applicant for Suspension of Sentence/ Bail requires reconsideration.
5. Considering the said certificate, an explanation was sought from the Probation Officer as to how the aforesaid fact was incorrectly mentioned in the earlier report. The Probation Officer submitted his explanation before this Court vide communication dated 04.09.2024 stating that while submitting the said report, he visited the house of the applicant and after collecting the information from the family members and neighbors, the said information was given in the report that he was not employed anywhere. No information was supplied regarding employment of the applicant and therefore in an earlier report, the column for employment was left blank.
6. Per contra, counsel for the State submits that the earlier application was rejected after due consideration of the Probation Officer's report, the seriousness of the offence, and the manner of its commission; hence, no case is made out for the grant of suspension of jail sentence/bail.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, and after hearing them, the following issues arise for consideration:
ii. Whether the application will be considered on merits means gravity and manner of commission of offences irrespective of the report of Probation Officer or report of the probation officer will be relevant consideration?
iii. Whether the provisions of the Act or the provisions of the Cr.P.C. shall apply for the consideration of bail / Suspension of Sentence to the CICL?
8. In order
Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand
Sampurna Behura Vs. Union of India (2018) 4 SCC 433
Pawan v. State of Uttaranchal (2009) 15 SCC 259 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 522
The court emphasized that the seriousness of the offence cannot solely justify denial of bail for a child in conflict with law, prioritizing rehabilitation and accurate reporting by the Probation Off....
Bail for juveniles under Section 12 of the J.J. Act cannot be denied based solely on the seriousness of the offence; concrete grounds are required to support denial.
Rejection of bail for juveniles must be based on proven risk factors, not just the seriousness of the charge; rehabilitation is prioritized under juvenile law.
Bail for juveniles is mandatory unless specific grounds exist showing that release may harm their welfare or obstruct justice, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
Bail to child in conflict with law mandatory under Section 12 JJ Act unless proviso grounds proven by objective evidence; mere heinous offence gravity or vague danger apprehensions insufficient for d....
The detention of a juvenile in an adult jail after being declared a juvenile contravenes the Juvenile Justice Act and constitutes a violation of constitutional rights, necessitating immediate correct....
Bail for juveniles under the Juvenile Justice Act is mandatory unless there are justifiable grounds for denial.
Bail should generally be granted to juveniles, with serious offenses not excluding this unless specific safety or justice concerns arise. Emphasis on rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.