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.

1

Signed by: PRAMOD

KUSHWAHA

Signing time: 24-03-2023

15:48:22

Signature Not Verified

The minor is an accused in crime No.345/2022, for commission of

offences under Section 302, 201, 120-B of IPC, 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.

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.

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.

The applicant through his father moved second application before JJB

2

Signed by: PRAMOD

KUSHWAHA

Signing time: 24-03-2023

15:48:22

Signature Not Verified

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.

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.

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.

Counsel for the State supports the orders impugned and submits that

Court rightly rejected the application for grant of bail, however, does no