2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 18372
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J
Bablu – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CRR 474/2024
Ramkrishna Shastri,Advocate General
Bail for juveniles cannot be denied solely based on the seriousness of the crime; objective reasons must be provided to justify denial under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Headnote:(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 12 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Conviction under IPC and POCSO Act - The court considered the applicant's conduct in jail and the social background, emphasizing that bail for juveniles should not be denied solely based on the seriousness of the crime. The court highlighted that bail can only be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would expose the juvenile to danger or defeat the ends of justice. (Paras 1, 6, 7, 8)
(B) Bail - The court reiterated that the Juvenile Justice Board must provide objective reasons for denying bail, and the gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was convicted for abducting and repeatedly raping a minor girl in 2016. The applicant's father sought custody, and the Probation Officer reported good conduct in jail. The applicant is married with three daughters.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the bail application, emphasizing the applicant's good behavior and family support.
Issues: The main issues included whether the applicant should be granted bail despite the serious nature of the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Juvenile Justice Board must objectively assess the circumstances before denying bail, and the seriousness of the crime alone is insufficient for denial.
Result: Criminal Revision allowed and disposed of.
This Criminal Revision under section 102 of Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children) Act and section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C . has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.1.2024 passed by IV ASJ, Ratlam in Criminal Appeal NO. 195/2022 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ratlam in criminal case No. RCT 102208/2016 by which the applicant has been convicted under section 376(1) of IPC and sec. 3/4 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 2 years imprisonment.
2. An application has been filed by the father of applicant for custody of the child. The report of Probation Officer was called. As per report of the Probation Officer, the conduct of the applicant in jail is disciplined and he is maintaining good relationship with other inmates. His behaviour with the employees is also good. He is co-operating in daily routine work. The social background has been disclosed that he belongs to rural and uneducated family and there is lack of family control.
3. Counsel for the State submits that alleged offence is of the year 2016. As per prosecution case, the applicant had abducted a minor girl and committed rape with her repeatedly.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that prosecutrix herself had gone with the applicant for labour work and it is alleged that applicant had committed rape with her against her will. The applicant is in jail since 11.1.2024. He is a married person and is having 3 daughters.
5. Counsel for the State opposed the prayer stating that allegation against the applicant is of serious in nature as it is alleged that he had committed rape with a minor girl.
6. Before considering the legality, correctness and validity of the order passed by the Courts below, it would be apposite to refer the relevant provision of the Act. Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as under :-
''12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.-
(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person.
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.
(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.
(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfill the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail."
Provisions of Section 12 of "J.J. Act, 2015" manifest that ordinarily, the Juvenile Justice Board is under obligation to release the juvenile on bail with or without surety. The juvenile shall not be released in certain circumsta