Gujarat High Court
Suresh @ Suriyo S/O Madanshi @ ... vs State Of Gujarat on 9 February, 2022
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.RA/814/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 814 of 2021
==========================================================
SURESH @ SURIYO S/O MADANSHI @ MAGAN NANGARSINH MEVUL
THROUGH MADANSHI @ MAGAN NANGARSINH MEVUL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 09/02/2022
ORAL ORDER
By filing present application, applicant, being a child in
conflict with law, through his father has requested to release
him on regular bail from the observation home at Rajkot in
connection with the FIR registered as CR No.
11202014210200 of 2021 with Dhrol Police Station, District:
Jamnagar by quashing and setting aside the judgment and
order dated 27.07.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of
2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
(Children's Court), Jamnagar thereby confirming the order
passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jamnagar.
Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP
for the respondent-State.
It was submitted by leaned advocate for the applicant that
R/CR.RA/814/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
the impugned judgment is unjust, unreasonable, against the
provisions of law and contrary to the evidence on record.
Learned Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the
applicant is an innocent person and has not committed any
offence as alleged in the FIR. There is no prima favie evidence
which can connect the applicant with the crime in question.
That, the applicant is falsely involved in the crime in question
with an oblique motive and extraneous considerations. A bare
perusal of the FIR clearly points out that the story narrated in
the FIR is a got up one and highly improbable as also
afterthought in as much as incident as alleged was taken place
on 03.04.2021 whereas FIR came to be lodged by the
complainant only on 10.04.2021. In these circumstances, false
involvement of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Ultimately, it
was requested by learned advocate for the applicant to allow
present application by enlarging the applicant on regular bail.
Learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly
objected the submissions of the learned advocate for the
applicant and submitted that the applicant is involved in the
serious offence and therefore, the board below has rightly
rejected the request of releasing the applicant on bail. That, the
prosecution has reasonably established the involvement of the
present applicant. That prima facie evidence is there to connect
the applicant with the crime in question. Ultimately, it was
R/CR.RA/814/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
requested by learned APP for the respondent-State to dismiss
present application.
Having heard learned advocate for applicant and learned
APP for the respondent-State and perusing the investigation
papers produced on record, it appears that in connection with
the offence being FIR registered as CR No. 11202014210200
of 2021 registered with Dhrol Police Station, District:
Jamnagar for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366,
376, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Section
4, 5(L) and 6 of the POCSO Act, the present applicant was
arrested on 13.04.2021. It appears that the applicant was
minor aged about 16 years when the said incident was taken
place and he was brought before the Juvenile Justice Board,
Jamnagar wherein the applicant was ordered to be sent to the
observation home at Rajkot. Thereafter, investigation was
carried out and charge sheet came to be filed against the
applicant on 20.05.2021. After filing of the charge sheet,
applicant had preferred regular bail application before the
Juvenile Justice Board, Jamnagar under Section 12 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act), which was rejected on
17.06.2021. Thereafter, the application filed Criminal Appeal
No. 72 of 2021 seeing regular bail before the lower appellate
court, which was also dismissed vide order 27.07.2021
R/CR.RA/814/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
confirming the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.
It further appears that alleged offence was taken place on
3rd April 2021 whereas FIR came to be registered on 10 th April
2021 ie., after delay of 7 days. It appears that the applicant
juvenile is aged about 16 years old and daughter of the
complainant was aged about 14 years, 10 months were in loe
affair since long and they were known to each other and used
to talk on mobile.
This Court would like to refer Section 12(1) of the Act,
which is 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 persons 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
R/CR.RA/814/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
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."
It appears that while reject the bail application of the
applicant, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court
have misinterpreted the above provisions and have failed to
consider the true intent and object behind its enactment. There
is no cogent material and reasonable grounds reflected in the
order rejecting bail application on the basis of which it could
be said that release of applicant is likely to bring applicant into
association with any known criminal or expose the applicant
to moral, physical or psychological danger or the applicant's
release would defeat the ends of justice.
It further appears that there is no any prima facie
material produced by the prosecution to show the
apprehension as stated in the proviso of Section 12(1) of the
Act. On the contrary as per report of Probation Officer, he
R/CR.RA/814/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
clearly opined that applicant should be released on bail. It
appears that the present applicant is a minor boy aged about
16 years old and he is in jail since six months. The applicant is
studying in 11th Standard. The family of the applicant is doing
agricultural labour work at the address mentioned in the cause
title since long. Moreover, the investigation is over and charge
sheet also filed and therefore, there is no likelihood of
tampering and hampering of evidence. Further, no recovery
and discovery is made from the applicant. Even, there is no
likelihood of commencement of trial against the applicant in
near future.
It appears that applicant has no criminal antecedents and
is permanently staying at the address mentioned in the memo
of application and has high reputation in the society.
Therefore, there are no chances of misusing the liberty by the
applicant, if he is released on bail.
Prayer of the applicant requires consideration but as the
applicant and victim were studying in the common school,
stringent condition is required to be imposed upon the
applicant by restraining his entry into Taluka Dhrol.
In the result, present Criminal Revision Application is
allowed and impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2021
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2021 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Children's Court),
R/CR.RA/814/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
Jamnagar stands quashed and set aside.
The applicant is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail in
connection with FIR registered as CR No. 11202014210200 of
2021 with Dhrol Police Station, District: Jamnagar subject to
the conditions that applicant shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the
prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a
week;
[d] not leave India without prior permission of the concerned
Trial Court;
[e] furnish the present address of residence to the
Investigating Officer and shall not change the residence
without prior permission of this Court;
[f[ not enter into the village - Taluka Dhrol for six months
and thereafter, another six months into village: Mota
Itala, Ta: Dhrol, District: Jamnagar.
The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not
required in connection with any other offence for the time
being. If breach of any of the above conditions is
committed,the concerned court will be free to issue warrant or
take appropriate action in the matter. It will be open for the
concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the
R/CR.RA/814/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
above conditions, in accordance with law.
At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court in the present
order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(B.N. KARIA, J)
K. S. DARJI
