Madhya Pradesh High Court
Durgabai (Guardian For The Juvenile ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 8 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5134 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
DURGABAI W/o MUKESH PATIDAR (GUARDIAN FOR
THE JUVENILE OFFENDER ANAND S/O MUKESH
PATIDAR) W/O MUKESH PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER VILLAGE HATUNIYA,
DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION DALODA
DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUHASH PUNDLIK - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
This revision coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
The present Revision is filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice(Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2000),
being aggrieved by the order passed by First ASJ, Mandsaur, District -
Mandsaur(M.P.) in criminal appeal No.183/2023 vide order dated 19/10/2023
dismissing the appeal of the applicant filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile
Justice Act.
2. This is second visit of the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner
earlier filed Criminal Revision No. 1874/2023. The same was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate application before the Juvenile Justice
Board. After expiry of three months the petitioner filed aprpriate application
before the Juvenile Justice Board on 11.10.2023 which has ben rejected by
order dated 19.10.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order, he filed appeal
under section 101 of the Act which has been dismissed by the impugned order
dated 19.10.2023. The minor Anand is accused in crime No. 345/2022 for
committing offence under section 302, 201, 120-B IPC registered at P.S.
Daloda, district Mandsaur. An application under section 12 of the Act was filed
through mother of the applicant which was rejected by the Magistrate and then
appeal has also been dismissed.
3. In a nutshell the facts of the case are that, on 8/10/2022 first
information report was lodged by complainant Suresh at Police Station Daloda,
in which it was stated that on 22/9/2022 present applicant and co-accused
Mahesh Rao and Deepak Malviya had taken deceased Vasudev Darji on a
motorcycle. It was further alleged that, Vasudev Darji had love affair with the
sister of co-accused Anand Patidar. According to further case of prosecution,
in a Khandar near Saraswati School Krishi Mandi, applicant and co-accused
apprehended Vasudev Darji and applicant Anand Patidar gave 4-5 knife blows
on his chest and thereby caused his death. On the above, all the culprits
including present applicant were arrested and as applicant was below the age of
18 years was produced before JJB, Mandsaur and has been lodged in Child
Care Home.
4. The applicant through his mother moved an earlier application under
Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child)Act, 2015 before
JJB for granting bail to applicant, a child in conflict with law, which was
dismissed and appeal filed against order of JJB was also dismissed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that, child
in conflict with law has falsely been implicated in which he is in observation
home since 9/10/2022. He has further submitted that co-accused Mukesh
Patidar has been released on bail by this Court itself vide order dated 11/1/2023
passed on bail application no.36/23 and revision of minor accused Krish Rao
has been allowed in Cr.Rev.No. 955/2022. On the above, it is submitted that,
appeal be allowed and child in conflict with law be released on bail for which
his mother is ready to furnish bonds directed by this Court.
6. This Court called a report of Probation Officer. As per the report of
the Probation Officer, the conduct of the applicant in the Child Care Home is
good. It is further submitted that he has passed 10th class while residing in
Observation Home. He recommended for consideration of the case on the
basis of the recommendation. The bail application of the applicant has been
rejected by the Principal Magistrate and the Revisional Court, only considering
the heinous offence of murder, which could not be sole consideration for
rejecting the application.
7. Counsel for the State supports the orders impugned and submits that
Court rightly rejected the application for grant of bail, however, does not
dispute the report of the Probation Officer.
8. Before considering the legality, correctness and validity of the order
passed by the Courts below, it would be apposite to refer the relevant provision
of the Act. Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 reads as under:
''12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in
conflict 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 person shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974) 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 person's 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 sub-section (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 sub-
section (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."
9. Provisions of Section 12 of "J.J. Act, 2015" manifest that ordinarily,
the Juvenile Justice Board is under obligation to release the juvenile on bail with
or without surety. The juvenile shall not be released in certain circumstances as
the latter part of the section also uses the word shall imposing certain
mandatory conditions prohibiting the release of the juvenile by the J.J. Board. If
there are any reasonable grounds for believing; (a) that the release is likely to
bring him into association with any known criminal; (b) that release is likely to
expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger and (c) that release of
the juvenile is in conflict with law and would defeat the ends of justice.
10. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 of "J.J. Act,
2015", it appears that the intention of the legislature is to grant bail to the
juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have been
committed by the juvenile, and bail can be declined only in such cases where
there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release is likely to bring the
juvenile into an association of any known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical, or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of
justice. The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for declining
the bail to the juvenile. A juvenile can be denied the concession of bail if any of
the three contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of "J.J. Act, 2015" is
available.
11. In case of Narayan Sharma v. State of M.P., ILR 2012 MP 796 a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering the provision of the Section
12 of the Act observed as under:
"In the opinion of this court, the Juvenile Justice Board
may be justified in denying bail to a juvenile involved in a
heinous crime only if there is material before it to form a
prima facie opinion on the aspects carved out as exception
to rule of bail in section 12 of the Act itself. There must be
some mechanism with the Juvenile Justice Board to gather
material and form an opinion as to whether the juvenile
need to be denied bail by bringing his case under the
exceptions to bail engrafted in Section 12. The opinion to
be formed by the Board, by no means, can be subjective
and has to be objective. Either the prosecution should
place some prima facie material before the Board or the
Court to show that release of a juvenile on bail may expose
him to moral, physical or psychological danger of the
Board may obtain a report from the Probation Officer
attached to the Board regarding antecedents and
circumstances attended to the juvenile, both pre and post
crime and it is only thereafter the Board or the Court
should crystallize its opinion regarding release or non
release of the juvenile on bail, though involved in a heinous
crime. A reference to the statutory provisions governing
bail to a juvenile contained in section 12 would show that
there is a mandate of law that the juvenile has to be released
on bail, except only in those cases where the case fall in
one or the other exception engrafted by the legislature in
Section 12 itself."
It has been observed in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2005 SCC
(Cri) 742, that:
"the whole object of the Act is to provide for the care,
protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of
neglected delinquent juveniles. It is a beneficial legislation
aimed at to make available the benefit of the Act to the
neglected or delinquent juveniles. It is settled law that the
interpretation of the statute of beneficial legislation must be
to advance the cause of legislation to the benefit for whom
it is made and not to frustrate the intendment of the
legislation."
Further it has been observed in Sanjay Chaurasia v. State of U.P.,
(2006) 55 ACC 480 that:
"10.In case of the refusal of the bail, some reasonable
grounds for believing above mentioned exceptions must be
brought before the Court concerned by the prosecution
but in the present case, no such ground for believing any
of the above mentioned exception has been brought by the
prosecution before the Juvenile Justice Board and
Appellate Court The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal
only on the presumption that due to commission of this
offence, the father and other relatives of other kidnapped
boy had developed enmity with the revisionist, that is why
in case of his release, the physical and mental life of the
revisionist will be in danger and his release will defeat the
ends of justice but substantial to this presumption no
material has been brought before the appellate court and
the same has not been discussed and only on the basis of
the presumption, Juvenile Justice Board has refused the
bail of the revisionist which is in the present case is
unjustified and against the spirit of the Act."
12. In the aforesaid judgments, it has been held that the bail application of
a child in conflict with the law cannot be rejected merely on the ground of
seriousness of the crime. The only exception to grant of bail to a child in
conflict with the law is the reasonable ground for believing that release would
bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.
13. Considering the facts of the present case, in view of aforesaid
enunciation of law and the report of the Probation Officer wherein it has been
stated that conduct of the child in conflict with the law has been good in the
observation home. The father of the applicant who is an accused has already
been released on bail, the application filed by mother on behalf of minor Anand
Patidar deserves to be allowed.
14. It is directed, that the accused Anand Patidar through his guardian
mother be released on bail in crime No.345/2022 registered at Police Station
Daloda, District - Mandsaur for commission of offences punishable under
Section 302, 201, 120-B of the IPC upon furnishing personal bond of his
mother of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of her relative in the amount of
Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Mandsaur
on the following conditions:-
(1) During bail period, applicant/juvenile-A will remain in her
supervision and control and she shall be responsible for his maintenance,
well being and other activities.
(2) Mother shall undertake that upon release on bail juvenile-A will
not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known
criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical, or
psychological danger and further that the mother will ensure that the
juvenile will not repeat the offence. Juvenile will pursue his study and not
allowed to waste his time in unproductive and excessive recreational
pursuits.
( 3 ) Juvenile and natural guardian/mother will report to the
Probation Officer on the every last date of the calendar month and
Probation Officer will keep a strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile
and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be
submitted to the J.J. Board, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile
Justice Board may determine.
(4) Natural guardian/mother shall also ensure of the appearance of
the Juvenile-A before J.J. Board on all the dates fixed by it till the final
disposal of the case pending before it.
With the aforesaid, the Criminal Revision is allowed and disposed
off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
