Sahil Sharma Minor Through His ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 984 MP

1                             Cr.R.No.540/2021
                      (Sahil Sharma Vs. State of M.P.)

Indore : Dated 23.3.2021

      Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned Govt.Advocate for the respondent/State.

This criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care

and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short the Act) against the

confirming judgment dated 24.12.2020 in Cr.A.No.64/2020, whereby

application under Section 12 of the Act has been rejected.

As per prosecution story, on 13.11.2020 a complaint has been filed

and registered at Crime No.369/2020 under Section 294, 323, 324, 506,

34 read with Section 307 of IPC at P.S., Thana Dehat, Biaora, District

Rajgarh. It is alleged that while complainant Rajvardhan @ Ricky Bais

S/o Vikram Singh aged about 31 years was going to home alongwith his

friends Rajesh and Manoj from Bhopal bye-pass crossing on motorcycle,

three unknown persons riding motorcycle came from behind near MPEB

grid and dashed as a result complainant and his friends fell on ground.

Thereafter, three unknown miscreants started beating them on head, hand

and legs with still rod causing grievous injuries and profuse bleeding. It

was suspected that at the instance of Hasan and Rajendra such incident

had taken place. The three unknown persons hurled filthy abuses and also

threatened the complainant with dire consequences. MLC was carried out

of the injuries suffered by the complainant and his associates. After

medical report considering gravity of injuries Section 307 IPC was added

(Sahil Sharma Vs. State of M.P.)

as the injuries were dangerous to life. MLC was carried out of the injuries

suffered by the complainant and his associates.

The trial Court while rejecting the application under Section 12 of

the Act has observed that if the applicant, a juvenile, is released on bail

there is every likelihood that he shall be in the company of anti-social

elements and there is a serious threat to moral, psychological and

physical danger to his life as contemplated under proviso to Section 12 of

the Act. The first appellate Court has confirmed the aforesaid

observations while upholding the order refusing the bail.

Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that

the aforesaid observations/justification for denial of bail to the applicant

is self styled observation without there being any material to such effect.

While referring to the Probation Officer's report annexed with the record

he submits that report runs contrary to what has been stated in the

impugned orders in as much as the Probation Officer himself has

observed that applicant has no criminal antecedents. The instant case is a

first crime. His behaviour in the Observation Home, Bhopal is normal

and is not in conflict with law. It is submitted that the proviso to Section

12 of the Act shall be applicable if there is a relevant material conforming

to the requirement of the proviso to justify refusal of bail. In absence

whereof the right of juvenile cannot be jeopardized as the same shall be

in direct conflict with personal liberty. Hence, prays for enlargement on

bail on such terms and conditions this Court deems fit and proper.

(Sahil Sharma Vs. State of M.P.)

Per contra, Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned Govt.Advocate, opposes the

application supporting the order impugned. However, he fairly submits

that report of the Probation Officer does not suggest that observations of

Courts below are in conformity with proviso to Section 12 of the Act.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, but without

commenting on merits of the contentions so advanced, regard being had

to the fact that report of the Probation Officer prima facie suggests that

the child in question is found to be of normal behaviour and not in

conflict with law. The observations of Courts below to the contrary as

rightly contended by Shri Bagadia is without such material facts in

existence fulfilling the requirement of proviso of Section 12 of the Act.

Consequently, the instant revision petition is allowed and the

impugned orders are set aside. It is directed that applicant Sahil Sharma

(juvenile) be released on bail on executing a personal bond by his natural

guardian (father Anil Sharma) after due verification in the sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lac only) with one solvent surety in the like

amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

Board, Rajgarh with the stipulation that on all the subsequent dates of

hearing, he shall produce the juvenile before the said Board/Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Court and his guardian shall ensure proper look-

after of the juvenile and keep him away from the company of criminals

with following further conditions:

(i) the applicant will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars and orders issued by the

(Sahil Sharma Vs. State of M.P.)

Government of India and the State Government as well as the local administration from time-to-time in the matter of maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene, etc.to avoid proliferation of Novel Corona virus (COVID-19);

(ii) the applicant shall mark his presence before the concerned Police Station on every 2 nd and 4th Saturday of every month between 10.00 AM to 12.00 Noon;

(iii) the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever or induce or threat any person acquainted with the facts of the case;

(iv) the applicant shall co-operate during trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments during trial;

(v) the concerned jail authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, the medical examination of the applicant be conducted through the jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that he is having any symptoms of COVID-19, then the consequential follow up action including the isolation/quarantine or any further test required be undertaken immediately;

(vi) violation of conditions, State is free to apply for cancellation of bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer is directed to send an e-copy of this order to

all the concerned including the concerned Station House Officer of the

Police Station for information and necessary action.

Registry is directed to sent an e-copy of this order to the Court

concerned for necessary compliance, as per rules.

E-certified copy as per rules.

(Rohit Arya) Judge Patil

Digitally signed by Shailesh Patil Date: 2021.03.24 10:21:40 +05'30'