A child's best interests must be considered based on social investigation reports when deciding on supurdgi under the Juvenile Justice Act, preventing undue harm to their development.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH th ON THE 7 OF JULY, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2485 of 2025 CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUG SARPARAST Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Abhishek Rathore - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Sharma - G.A for the respondent/State.

ORDER This criminal revision is preferred under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 challenging the order dated 30.04.2025 in criminal appeal no.46/2025 by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Ratlam arising out of order dated 08.04.2025 in RCT No.49/2015 by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Ratlam whereby the application of the child in conflict with law in relation to crime no.49/2025 registered at police station Industrial Area Jaora, district Ratlam has been rejected and the child in conflict law has been denied to be handed over on supurdgi to his father.

2. Facts in brief are that child in conflict with law was Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Ratlam in connection with crime no.49/2025 registered at Industrial Area, Jaora, Ratlam under section 15 read with section 8 of the NDPS Act, 1985 wherein it is stated that 200 kg. contraband dodachura was transported in a vehicle on25.01.2025. The child in conflict with law was born on 16.06.2008 and the Juvenile Justice Board, Ratlam found him below the age of 18 and he is 16 years and 6 months.

3. The Juvenile Justice Board, Ratlam and Special Judge (NDPS Act) Ratlam have rejected the application on the ground that if the child in conflict with law is given on supurdgi, then there is every possibility that his moral, physical and psychological health will be prejudiced and there is a possibility that he will again commit the same kind of offences.

4. Challenging the order, this revision has been preferred on the ground that the impugned orders are in violation of the provision of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and both the Courts have not considered the social investigation report.

5. State has opposed the application on the ground that the offence is heinous in nature and the child is above 16 years and below 18 years. His trial has to be conducted as an adult and reasons for not granting the benefit of supurdgi is proper.

6. Considered rival submissions.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR

7. Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that there s no record that the child in conflict with law was previously exposed to the criminal activities. The social investigation report submitted before this Court discloses that the child in conflict with law is a student of under graduation course and his father is working as a driver in a school van. There is nothing on record that any family member of the child in conflict with law has any connection with the criminal activities, hence the reasons for disallowing the application is not in consonance with the social investigation report and even if the child in conflict with law is tried as an adult, he cannot be deprived his status as a juvenile.

8. In view of the above, this revision succeeds and the orders of both the courts below are set aside and it is ordered that the child in conflict with law be handed over to his father on his furnishing supurdginama to a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) that he be kept present before the court as and when called and shall keep him away from exposure of any unlawful activities and will provide him the atmosphere that will be helpful in grooming his career.