Shekhar Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 15511 MP

                                  1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT INDORE
                                BEFORE
                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                      ON THE 24th OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3078 of 2021

        BETWEEN:-
        SHEKHAR DUBEY S/O LAXMINARAYAN DUBEY
        OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 29, KALINDI GOLD,
        INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....PETITIONER
        (SHRI ARJUN PATHAK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
        PETITIONER .)

        AND
1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
        HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH P.S. BANGANGA,
        INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      JUVENILE IN CONFLICT WITH LAW SHIV
        PRATAP SINGH S/O SHRI UPENDRA TOMAR
        (GUARDIAN OF JUVENILE IN CONFLICT WITH
        LAW), AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        STUDENT B-251, KALINDI GOLD CITY, INDORE
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
        ( SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
        RESPONDENT/STATE.)
        (SHRI ARPIT SINGH, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
        )

      This revision coming on for hearing on this day, the court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present criminal revision under section 397 of the Cr.P.C. read with section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 [in short 'the Act'] against the order dated 24/07/2021 passed in criminal appeal no.58/2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Indore whereby the

order dated 12.07.2021 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, District Indore in trial No.852/2021 registered at Police Station Banganga, Indore has been set aside and application filed under section 101 of the Act for grant of bail was allowed.

2 . According to prosecution story, on 17/06/2021 at around 01:05 PM Dr. Pankaj Nema of Arbindo Hospital Indore informed through phone to police Banganga that Latika D/o Shekhar Dubey R/o 29 Kalindi Gold City, Village Bhangya Indore who had hanged herself on 15/06/2021 at 01:25 PM was brought to hospital for treatment by her father Shekhar Dubey She has died at 01:05 PM during treatment Merg was registered In inquiry police recorded the

statements of deceased's father, mother and brother and on the basis of their statements an FIR at FIR no.852/2021 for commission of offence us 306 of IPC was registered in P.S. Banganga.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the first appellate court is contrary to the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act. The Probation Officer report was a formal background check of the respondent no.2 and learned Sessions Judge in placing reliance on the report released the applicant in conflict with the law. The child in conflict was aged between 16 to 18 years and the consequences of his action leads to death of a minor. There is no psychological evolution of the juvenile in conflict with law to undermine his action and to understand such action. Therefore, a prayer is made that the impugned order be set aside and the Juvenile in conflict with law be taken into the custody and also directed that psychological analysis of the juvenile in custody be conducted. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu and another in criminal appeal no.951/2022 decided on

13.07.2022. He has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in case of A and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Civil Revision No.625/2022 decided on 26.08.2022.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposes the prayer of the petitioner and prays for its rejection by submitting that the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court cannot be termed as illegal or against the material available on record.

I have considered the contention made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the documents available on record.

Considering the rival contention of both the parties and from the perusal of the allegations made against the respondent no.2 in the FIR as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. it appears that the report of the Probation Officer is important for adjudication of the application for supurdnama of the juvenile filed by his parents.

In the instant case compliance of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act the report of the Probation Officer was called and according to the conclusion of the report at present the juvenile is studying in 12th Class and he got distinction in four subjects in the Board Examination of 10th Class and it is also mentioned that one opportunity should be given to the juvenile for his

improvement. According to the conclusion of that report there is no possibility exist to bring the juvenile into the association of known criminal exposed him to moral, physical and psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice.

The First Appellate Court on consideration of the report of the Probation

Officer and also facts and circumstances of the case rightly held that respondent no.2/juvenile is entitled to be released on bail/supurdginama.

On cumulative consideration of these facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that First Appellate Court has not committed any error while passing impugned order and First Appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to release the respondent juvenile on bail/ supurdnama.

Consequently this criminal revision has no merits and is hereby dismissed.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE ajit

AJIT KAMALASANAN 2022.11.25 10:36:20 +05'30'