Sunil Through Father Sukhram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6153 MP

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

CRR No.1279/2021 (Sunil Kharadi Vs. State of M.P.) Indore, Dated : 28.9.2021 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned PL for the non- applicant/State.

Heard.

Submissions were made on Criminal Revision filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short hereinafter it shall be referred to as "Act") against the order dated 27.3.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.41/2021 by the Sessions Judge, Jhabua, whereby the appellate court has affirmed the order dated 23.3.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jhabua in Crime No.44/2021.

The prosecution story is that the applicant had entered into the house of the prosecutrix aged 11 years and had committed rape upon her.

The applicant has challenged the impugned orders on the ground that the courts below did not consider the bail application in accordance with Section 12 of the Act.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that none of the conditions as mentioned in the proviso to Section 12 of the Act existed for denying the relief of bail to the applicant who is a juvenile. It has further been pointed out that the Probation Officer in his report dated 9.6.2021 has not made any adverse observation against the juvenile applicant and on these grounds this application has been sought to be allowed.

Learned counsel for the State was heard, who has opposed the application by submitting that in the MLC report the hymen of the prosecutrix has been found to be ruptured and there is an abrasion on her cheek also and this offence is very HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

heinous in character and, therefore, the application has been sought to be dismissed.

Considered. Perused the case diary as well as Probation Officer's report.

The Probation Officer's report is favourable in respect of the juvenile. All columns have been tick marked in a positive manner and it has been shown that the applicant generally maintains discipline, his relations with family members are appropriate and friendly, that he is not given to any negative habits such as; consumption of liquor, smoking, gambling, drugs etc., the offence has been shown to have been committed under ignorance, that the applicant has maintained cordial relations with other inmates, that there is no deviant behaviour shown during his stay in the observation home.

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn Court's attention to two coordinate Bench judgments which are (1) Arun @ Chhuttoo Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [2016 SCC Online MP 4704] and (2) Hani @ Harsh Thapa (Minor) Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [2016 SCC Online MP 3602] and in both of these cases conditions as provided under proviso to Section 12 of the Act were not found to have been satisfied and, therefore, the revisions were allowed.

Considered.

The bail application of a juvenile would be considered as per the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The proviso to the aforesaid Section prescribes conditions which if seem to be existing, would result in rejection of the bail application. Such conditions are enumerated as under:-

(i) the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminals or;

(ii) expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or;

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

(iii) the person released would defeat the ends of justice.

A perusal of Probation Officer's report negatives the possibility of juvenile coming into contact with any known criminal, if bail is granted to him. Regarding the second clause, the learned counsel has submitted that there is no report to the effect that if the juvenile is released on bail, he will have threat to physical assault in any manner by family members of the prosecutrix. Regarding moral or psychological danger, the Probation Officer's report shows that there is adequate atmosphere in the house of the juvenile which would prevent him from falling into any moral or psychological danger. Regarding the third clause, i.e. ends of justice would be defeated if the applicant is released on bail, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to negate this possibility only after prosecutrix has been examined and, therefore, at this stage this application is not liable to be allowed. However, applicant shall have liberty to renew the prayer after examination of the prosecutrix.

With the aforesaid, this criminal revision stands dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.

(Shailendra Shukla) Judge trilok/-

Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2021.09.28 17:41:57 +05'30'