Balak Through Maternal Uncle ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7209 MP

                                    1                             CRR-1993-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 CRR No. 1993 of 2021
    (BALAK THROUGH MATERNAL UNCLE (GUARDIAN ) Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

6
Jabalpur, Dated : 10-11-2021
       Shri Pramendra Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner.
       Ms. Hemlata Kshatriya, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.

This revision has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved from the judgment dated 02.08.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.55/2021 by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, District-Hoshangabad, affirming

the order dated 30.06.2021 passed by Member of Juvenile Justice Board, Hoshangabad, District-Hoshangabad (M.P.), whereby learned Member Juvenile Justice Board, Hoshangabad has rejected the bail application for release of the petitioner-juvenile in conflict with law.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.11.2020, prosecutrix lodged the FIR against the present petitioner stating therein that present applicant committed sexual intercourse with her repeatedly due to this, she got pregnant and when she went to Medical Collage Jabalpur for abortion where information has been given to the police for the same. Therefore, on the basis

of said information, police has been arrested the present petitioner-juvenile and a case was registered against the present petitioner-juvenile. Present petitioner-juvenile was produced before Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner's maternal uncle (mama) has filed an application for bail. Application was rejected then he filed appeal against that order before III Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad and the same was also rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-juvenile submits that the petitioner is a minor boy aged about 16 years. The investigation is over and charge sheet in the matter has already been filed and no query is due, but learned Court below has wrongly held that the purpose of justice will be served to keep in observation home without mentioning what purpose will be defeated while passing the impugned judgment. Learned Court below has wrongly came to 2 CRR-1993-2021 the conclusion while passing the impugned judgment and also ignored that the petitioner-juvenile is a minor boy; therefore, his future would be spoiled due to non-consideration of the bail. In support of his contention, he relied upon the order in the case of Ankush @ Kittu v. State of M.P. reported in 2015 (II) MPWN 38 decided on 23.04.2015.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, District-

Hoshangabad dismissed the appeal then he filed this revision before this Court.

Heard both the parties and perused the record.

According to the petitioner's maternal uncle, the order of the Member of Juvenile Justice Board, Hoshangabad and learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad are not proper and bad in law. Member of Juvenile Justice Board and learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad have not considered the law in its true perspective. The maternal uncle of the petitioner-juvenile submitted that in view of the mandatory provision for bail u/s 12 of the Act, the petitioner-juvenile is entitled for bail. Petitioner-juvenile's maternal uncle is ready to take responsibility of the petitioner-juvenile and also ready to execute affidavit that the petitioner-juvenile will residing with him at his house and to take admission in Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School Bareli and also entire expenditure. There was nothing on record to show that the release of petitioner-juvenile was likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger so it is in the interest of justice to release the petitioner-juvenile on bail.

It is found evident that regarding bail to a juvenile, it is relevant for u/s 12 which reads as under:-

"12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be inconflict 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 3 CRR-1993-2021 person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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 subsection (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 subsection (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 is evident that in all the aforesaid provisions if a petitioner-juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board such person shall be released, but he shall not be so released if their appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological 4 CRR-1993-2021 danger or that his release would defeat ends of the justice. Thus, every juvenile have whatsoever offence he charged with shall be released on bail except under the above circumstances.

It is mentioned in the Social Enquiry Report that no discipline is found in the house of petitioner/juvenile in conflict with law and the behaviour of parents of petitioner-juvenile in conflict with law is also negligent. Prosecutrix and petitioner/juvenile in conflict with law is real sister and brother, so the possibility of commission of alleged offence is found present but, petitioner- juvenile in conflict with law has no criminal background. Apart from that, in the report of Social Enquiry of the petitioner/juvenile in conflict with law it is also mentioned that juvenile in conflict with law is not a habitual criminal and no specific details are mentioned in his report with regard to the criminal background of the petitioner/juvenile. At present, petitioner is studying in Class-XI. In the said report it is clearly mentioned that if the parents of petitioner/juvenile in conflict with law restricts the petitioner/juvenile to come into the contact with prosecutrix, then petitioner/juvenile can be released on supurdginama. There is no previous criminal record against the petitioner/juvenile in conflict with law and his family members. So, in this case, there is no material available on record showing any reasonable ground for believing that the release of the petitioner/juvenile in conflict with law is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat ends of justice. The maternal uncle of petitioner-juvenile in conflict with law is ready to take responsibility of the petitioner-juvenile. In this regard, Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the similar issues in the case of Ranjeet Singh V. State of H.P. reported in 2005 Cri.L.J. 972 & Rahul Rajendra V. State of M.P. reported in 2001 (1) M.P.L.J. 172 . Accordingly. this revision petition is allowed, the judgment dated 02.08.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.55/2021 by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, District-Hoshangabad affirming the order dated 30.06.2021 passed by Member of Juvenile Justice 5 CRR-1993-2021 Board, Hoshangabad, District-Hoshangabad rejecting the application for grant of bail to the Juvenile in conflict with law filed by the maternal uncle (mama) of the juvenile are hereby set-aside. It is directed that petitioner/juvenile in conflict with law shall be released on bail subject to filling an affidavit by his maternal uncle regarding that petitioner/juvenile will residing with him in his house and not come into the contact of prosecutrix. Maternal uncle of petitioner/juvenile in conflict with law will also make admission to the petitioner/juvenile in school and on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) by his maternal uncle with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Member of Juvenile Justice Board, Hoshangabad, District-Hoshangabad for his appearance before that Magistrate.

Hence, this revision is disposed of.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL sp Date: 2021.11.15 17:13:54 +05'30'