Madhya Pradesh High Court
Golu @ Goldi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 June, 2022
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11264 of 2021
Between:-
GOLU @ GOLDI S/O JOSEF DENIAL ,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 36,
BHAGATSINGH NAGAR BANGANGA
NAKA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI MANISH SANKHLA, ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THR. P.S.
BANGANGA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AMIT SINGH SISODIA, G.A.)
_________________________________________________
Reserved on : 20/04/2022
Delivered on : 22/06/2022
____________________________________________________
This application coming on for order this day, HON'BLE
SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR passed the following:
Digitally signed by KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Date: 2022.06.23 16:20:47 +05'30'
2
:: ORDER ::
(Passed on 22/06 /2022)
1] This application has been filed for release of the applicant
Golu @ Goldi from jail as he is lodged in jail in connection with his
conviction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that he is a
juvenile and has already completed more than 8 years in jail and as
per the Juvenile Justice Act, he cannot be put behind the bars for
more than three years.
2] On perusal of the application, it appears to be a badly drafted
one, as in effect, the prayer only says that the applicant be released
on completion of his jail sentence, in such circumstances, when the
applicant's appeal is already pending before this court, this court
was inclined to dismiss this application as not maintainable
however, it is claimed that the applicant is a juvenile, we have also
heard the learned counsel for the applicant on this application as
well.
3] The aforesaid application has been filed citing the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the plea of the applicant being
juvenile can be taken up at any stage of proceedings. In support of
the aforesaid application, various documents have also been filed to
demonstrate regarding his age, date of birth being 29/07/1990 and
as he was born in a Christian family, he was baptized vide Ex.P/4 in
which also, his date of birth is said to be 29/07/1990 whereas, the
date of incident is .11.07.2006. Thus, it is claimed that he was less
than 16 years old at the time of incident. Shri Sankhala, learned
counsel for the applicant has also submitted that these are the old
documents and at the time when they were executed, there was no
reason for the parents of the applicant to mention a wrong date of
birth. His School Leaving Certificate has also been filed.
4] On the other hand, the aforesaid application has been
opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State on the
ground that this ground was specifically raised before the Trial
Court but the documents which have been placed on record to prove
the age of the applicant were found to be forged, however, the
learned trial Judge before scrutinizing the said documents, allowed
the bail application of the applicant. However, immediately after
being released on bail, the applicant committed yet another offence
by carrying out a bomb blast in the house of the complainant, for
which, Crime No.183/2007 was registered against him on
28/03/2007, and a case under Section 307/34 of IPC read with
Section 3 and 4 of the Explosives Act, 1884 and when the
application for cancellation of bail was filed, the learned Judge of
the Trial Court took cognizance of various documents filed by the
applicant regarding his age and it was found that the documents are
suspicious in nature and that in MLC also his age is said to be 20
years, thus, holding that the applicant had obtained the bail on
earlier occasion by filing false papers, his earlier bail order was also
cancelled. Subsequently a criminal case was also registered against
the father of the applicant Joseph Denial for filing false documents
of age of the applicant in the Trial Court.
5] It is further submitted that the aforesaid case which was tried
as ST No.404/2014, was decided on 21/01/2020 and the father of
the applicant has been acquitted on the ground that the prosecution
has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt which
in itself cannot be said to be a circumstance to demonstrate that the
present applicant Goldie was minor at the time of incident.
6] Heard.
7] From the record, it is found that the applicant's application
for bail has already been dismissed by the Juvenile Board on
20.01.2006 considering his long list of 13 criminal cases registered
against him from 2001 till 2006 which include two cases of
robbery, thefts etc. But, on 19.01.2007 his application for bail was
rejected and the appeal against which was allowed by the lower
appellate court on 12.02.2007. However, the aforesaid order was
cancelled by the lower appellate court on the ground of misuse of
the bail order as the applicant was again found to be involve in a
bomb blast case in Crime No.183/2007 u/s.307/34 and S.3& 4 of
the Explosives Act, 1884 also on the ground that he had filed forged
documents regarding his age on the earlier occasion.
8] So far as the acquittal of the applicant's father in ST
No.404/2014 is concerned in which he was trying for filing forged
documents of the present applicant in the Court to obtain undue
benefit of Juvenile Justice Act, this Court is of the opinion that in
the aforesaid judgement, the applicant's father has been acquitted
giving him benefit of doubt of which the applicant cannot derive
any benefit. Even otherwise, counsel for the applicant was not in a
position to inform this Court as to what happened to the applicant's
case when it was sent to the Juvenile Court and what was its
outcome. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to allow
the present application to come to a conclusion that the applicant
was juvenile.
Accordingly, the application being devoid of merit is hereby
dismissed.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
krjoshi
Digitally signed by KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Date: 2022.06.23 16:20:27 +05'30'
