Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ritik Lalpuri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 August, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 Cr.R.No.1144 of 2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Criminal Revision No.1144/2021
Ritik Lalpuri
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pradeep Dwivedi, learned PL for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri J.L. Soni, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Reserved on : 03.08.2021
Delivered on : 09.08.2021
This criminal revision has been filed under Section 102 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 read with
Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the order dated
25.03.2021 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in
Criminal Appeal No.11/2021, whereby the order of Principal Judge, Juvenile
Justice Board, Shahdol dated 12.03.2021 rejecting the application for release
of the applicant/Juvenile in conflict with law has been affirmed.
2. The present applicant/Juvenile in conflict with law was arrested on
31.12.2019 in Crime No.879/2019 registered at Police Station Kotwali,
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2021.08.09 18:01:05 IST
District Shahdol for offence punishable under Sections 363, 364-A, 302,
201, 34 of IPC and Section 25(2) of Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 13.12.2019 complainant Ajay Soni
father of the deceased Akshat Soni lodged a report at Police Station Kotwali,
District Shahdol averring that deceased Akshat Soni had left the house at
3:30 PM, in the evening, since then he has not returned back, someone has
kidnapped him. On that report Police registered Crime No.879/2019 and
investigated the matter. During investigation, it was found that on
30/12/2019 applicant and co-accused Dhanraj Samudre and Tanishq took
deceased Akshat at railway ground by motorcycle bearing registration
No.MP-18-MM-1217 where co-accused Aman Yadav also meet them,
thereafter they took deceased Akshat near Munna River Kalyanpur, where
they looted one gold chain and mobile from the possession of deceased
Akshat and assaulted him by knife, due to which he sustained injury in his
neck and died, thus they murdered him. Police arrested the applicant and co-
accused and filed charge-sheet against the applicant before Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Shahdol. On that charge-sheet, Case
No.27/2021 was registered, which is pending before the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Shahdol and the applicant is facing trial
in that case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not
committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the case. There is
no direct evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. Police
Signature Not Verified
only on the basis of memorandum of applicant and on the ground that
SAN
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2021.08.09 18:01:05 IST
applicant last seen with the deceased, implicated him in the crime, while
only on that basis it cannot be said that applicant murdered deceased. Even
otherwise the applicant is Juvenile, and at the time of consideration of bail of
a juvenile, the gravity of offence should not be seen.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that Juvenile
delinquent ordinarily has to be released on bail irrespective of the nature of
the offence alleged to have been committed unless it is shown that there
appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the petitioner is
likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him
to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat
the ends of justice.
6. He further submitted that however, the trial Court as well as Appellate
Court rejected the applicant's application on the ground that if the applicant
is released on bail it is likely to bring him in the association of the known
criminals or it would expose him to any moral, physical or psychological
danger, but in this regard findings of both the Courts below has no basis. In
the earlier Probationary Officer report only it is mentioned that the applicant
committed crime because he was in bad company. Only on that basis it
cannot be said that in the event of release of an applicant it is likely to bring
him in the association of the known criminals or it would expose him to any
moral, physical or psychological danger. In the recent probationary officer
report, it is mentioned that the behavior of the applicant is good. The
applicant is in remand home since 31.12.2019. The applicant will be
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2021.08.09 18:01:05 IST
properly taken care of by his father/guardian. So he should be released on
bail.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State as well as respondent
no.2 opposed the prayer and submitted that in the earlier Probationary
Officer's report, it was mentioned that behavior of applicant is not good and
he is accompanied with the bad persons. If he is released on bail there is a
possibility to again meet with the bad persons, so he should not be released
on bail.
8. In this regard, learned counsel for the Objector also placed reliance on
the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal
Revision No.1800/2020 (Vikas vs. State of M.P.), order dated 22.10.2020,
Criminal Revision No.853/2021 (Sunil s/o Budiya Parmar through
guardian (Father) vs. State of M.P., order dated 15.06.2021, Criminal
Revision No.16/2018 (Rahul Tiwari vs. State of M.P.) order dated
03.04.2018 and the judgment of U.P. High Court passed in Criminal
Revision No.2492/2017 vide order dated 03.07.2018 (Raju @ Ashish vs.
State of U.P. and Another) and the judgment of Rajasthan High Court
passed in Criminal Revision No.437/2018 vide order dated 09.05.2018
(Harsh Bhavi vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. This Court has gone through the record and arguments advanced by
the counsels of both the parties. In the case of Rahul Tiwari vs. State of
M.P. (supra), Sunil s/o Budiya Parmar vs. State of M.P. (supra), Raju @
Ashish vs. State of U.P. and Another (supra) and Deepak vs. State of
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Rajasthan (supra) as relied by learned counsel for the respondent no.2
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2021.08.09 18:01:05 IST
Coordinate Benches of this Court as well as the other High Courts have not
laid down any guideline regarding granting or rejecting the bail to the
Juvenile. In fact, the respective Courts have rejected the bail to the Juvenile
(accused of the case) considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of
those cases. The facts of the case Vikas vs. State of M.P. (supra), also do not
match with the present case, as in that case, the Coordinate Bench of this
Court rejected the prayer for bail of a juvenile on the ground that the
applicant murdered his mother, father and brother. The alleged act of the
applicant itself shakes the conscience of the society and if he is released on
bail it would defeat the ends of Justice. So, that orders also do not help the
respondent/objector.
10. Although the trial court, as well as appellate Court, rejected the prayer
of releasing Juveniles in conflict with law stating that if the applicant is
released on bail, it is likely to bring him in the association of the known
criminals or it would expose him to any moral, physical or psychological
danger but this fact is neither mentioned in the earlier report nor in the
second report submitted by the Probation Officer before this Court. In the
earlier report as mentioned in the order of the trial Court it was only
mentioned that the applicant/Juvenile in conflict with law was unemployed,
he had left studies after the fifth class, his friends were of criminal
background and the criminal act was committed by him due to their
influence. Only on that basis, it can not be said that if the applicant is
released on bail, it is likely to bring him in the association of the known
criminals or would expose him to any moral, physical or psychological
Signature Not Verified
SAN
danger. On the contrary, in the recent probationary officer's report, it is
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2021.08.09 18:01:05 IST
mentioned that the work and behavior of the delinquent child during his stay
in the observation home is according to the rules of the institution, he is also
friendly with other children and he is serious about the discipline of the
institution, no immoral act has been done during his stay in the institution.
There is no evidence on record to show that either parents of the petitioners
are also criminals or the applicant has a criminal past showing lapse on the
part of the parents after their release while on bail.
11. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
appropriate that custody of the applicant be handed over to his father, hence
the revision is allowed. It is directed that if the father of the present applicant
furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand
only) and one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Juvenile Justice Board, Shahdol with an undertaking that the father of the
applicant will take care of the juvenile in conflict with law and also take care
that he will not indulge in any kind of criminal activity, the custody of the
applicant/juvenile in conflict with law be handed over to his father.
Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
mn
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2021.08.09 18:01:05 IST
