Ram Khatik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2972 MP

                                                                     1
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                                   BEFORE
                                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                           ON THE 3rd OF MARCH, 2022

                                                 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 30555 of 2021

                                         Between:-
                                         RAM KHATIK S/O SHRI KISHORI LAL KHATIK ,
                                         AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
                                         R/OGRAM KHUSHIPURA TEH ANDP.S. BANDA
                                         DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                   .....PETITIONER
                                         (BY SHRI ANIL KHARE SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI T.R KURMI,
                                         ADVOCATE)

                                         AND

                                1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.P.S.
                                         BANDADISTT. SAGAR MP DISTT S A G A R ,[MP
                                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                2.       VICTIM A D/O NOT KNOWN NOT MENTION
                                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                                         (BY SHRI AMIT PANDEY, PANEL LAWYER)

                                      This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                                following:
                                                                      ORDER

This repeat application has been filed on the ground that the applicant is a minor, it is argued that the application for considering of bail application on the ground of Juvenility of applicant was filed before the learned trial Court which was considered by the learned trial Court vide order dated 05/10/2019 has been passed. Wherein, the learned trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that on the date of commission of offence, the applicant is found to be major. It is argued that the date of birth of the victim is recorded as 02/06/2001 and she is found to be a minor by the prosecution agency. The date of birth of the present applicant as per the prosecution is 28/06/2001 i.e he is younger to the victim, the last date of commission of offence is reported to be 05/07/2019 on the basis of which the FIR was got registered. It is argued that if the provisions of POSCO Act are being Signature Not Verified SAN

leveled against the present applicant and victim is found to be a minor then how Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI

come the applicant being a major on the date of commission of offence once he is Date: 2022.03.05 11:12:33 IST

admittedly younger to the victim according to his date of birth. The provisions contained under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule 2007 has not been followed. He has placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of U.P and others reported in

2021 SCC online SC 1079 wherein the aforesaid aspects was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that in case there is a dispute with respect to the age of Juvenile then the procedure as contemplated under the Juvenile Justice Act and Section 12 of the aforesaid act should be followed. No such inquiry was conducted in the present matter. Therefore, the order passed by the leaned trial Court on an application of Juvenility dated 05/10/2019 is being put to challenge before this Court by filling Criminal Revision which is registered at CRR No.5773/2019 and is listed for hearing today along with for analogous hearing.

As far as the bail application is concerned.

This is the forth bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail. First, second and third bail applications have been dismissed on merits vide orders dated 27/09/2019, 17/12/2019 and 16/10/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos.35638/2019, 50843/2019 and 26962/2020 respectively.

T he applicant has been arrested on 10/08/2019 by Police Station-Banda, District Sagar (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.562/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 of the IPC and under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and has not committed any offence in any manner. It is argued that as per the prosecution story, the victim is only approximately a month less than 18 years of age. The factum of relationship on earlier occasion is not disputed in the matter. In such circumstances, the benefit of bail should be extended to the present applicant. He is in custody since 10/08/2019. H e is ready to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering this bail application. On these ground, he prays for grant of bail. Signature Not Verified SAN P er contra, counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI prayer stating that the there are specific allegation against the present applicant Date: 2022.03.05 11:12:33 IST

regarding commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC for which the provisions of POSCO Act are also been leveled against him. The victim is found to be a minor.

A specific question was put to him regarding the order passed by the learned trial Court on the application of Juvenility filed by the present applicant that how and what circumstances, the learned trial Court has passed the order rejecting his application holding it to be major on the date of commission of offence despite of the fact that as per the date of birth of the victim as well as the present applicant admittedly is younger to the victim. If the provisions of POCSO Act are being

attracted in the matter then the victim is a minor then how a person who is a minor to the victim can be held to be a major on the date of commission of offence.

The aforesaid could not be answered by the State counsel but certain documents have been produced before this Court pointing out the fact that on earlier application which was filed seeking grant of bail, certain documents were filed which clearly demonstrate that there are manipulation in the date of birth and in the school records. But he fairly submits that the aforesaid documents were not part of the application which has been filed before the learned trial Court. Therefore, the same cannot be considered.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the factum that the victim is only a month short of his attaining the age of majority and the factum of previous relationship is not being disputed, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail temporarily for a period of 45 days to enable the learned trial Court to reconsider the factum of Juvenility of the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant be released on temporary bail for a period of 45 days on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer /trial Court. The applicant is directed to surrender immediately on completion of 45 days from the date of release.

Application stands allowed and disposed of.

Signature Not Verified Certified copy as per rules.

SAN

Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.03.05 11:12:33 IST

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Prar

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.03.05 11:12:33 IST