Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ritik By Legal Guardian Father ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2023

Author: Anil Verma

                                            1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                   AT INDORE
                                      BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                       ON THE 9th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4335 of 2023

   BETWEEN:-
   RITIK AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS THROUGH
   LEGAL GUARDIAN FATHER SACHIN KUMAR
1. KASTURA    R/O    JHUGGEE     JHOPADEE,
   AYURVEDIC    HOSPITAL    KE    PEECHHE,
   CHIMANGANJ, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

   ASHWINI AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS THROUGH
   LEGAL GUARDIAN FATHER SACHIN KUMAR
2. KASTURA R/O JUGGI JHOPDI AYURVEDIC
   HOSPITAL KE PICHE, CHIMANGANJ UJJAIN
   (MADHYA PRADESH)

   ALBAJ AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS THROUGH
   LEGAL GUARDIAN FATHER SURENDRA NATH S/
3. O NANDUJI R/O JUGGI JHOPDI AYURVEDIC
   HOSPITAL KE PICHE CHIMANGANJ, UJJAIN
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                   .....APPLICANTS
   (BY SHRI MANOHAR SINGH CHOUHAN -ADVOCATE)


   AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
   THROUGH POLICE STATION -
   CHIMANGANJ, UJJAIN (M.P.)
                                                                  .....RESPONDENT

   (BY SHRI SURENDRA GUPTA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     This criminal revision coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
                                     2




                              ORDER

1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2000) being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 4.9.2023 passed by the 6 th ASJ, Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No.171/2023 affirming the order dated 16.8.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ujjain relating to Crime No.445/2023, whereby the prayer made by the petitioners for giving the applicants/juvenile on interim custody to their father has been dismissed.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, if that complainant Jitendra Kasera lodged an FIR at P.S. Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain by stating that on 8.6.2023 at night time he locked his factory and went to his house. On the next morning when he returned to the factory, he found that about 750 k.g. brass and copper utensils were missing from there and some unknown miscreants, after braking the door, entered into the factory and stolen the aforesaid property. During the search, some stolen property has been recovered from the possession of the present applicants. Accordingly offence has been registered and they have been sent to the Bal Sampreshan Grah.

3. An application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act was submitted by the father of the applicants to take their custody. The said application was dismissed on 16.8.2023 by the Juvenile Justice Board. Then against the impugned order an appeal was preferred under the said

Act, but the same was also dismissed. Thereafter this revision petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this matter. The applicants are 13 to 17 years of age and not having any criminal past. They are students and resident of District Ujjain and their fathers are ready and willing to furnish security and undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed. Hence, he prays that the applicants be handed over to their father on interim custody.

5. By the order of the appellate court, report of the Probation Officer, Ujjain was called and in the report it has been submitted that the juveniles have committed the offence of theft due to the bad environment, therefore, they are required for counselling.

6. Counsel for the respondent/State supported the impugned order by submitting that the court below has rightly rejected the application for grant of bail/interim custody and the same does not require any interference.

7. 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."

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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."

11. 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."

12. 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."

13. 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.

14. Considering the aforesaid enunciation of law and the report of the Probation Officer, this Court is of the opinion that the application filed by the father on behalf of minor Ritik, Ashwini and Albaj deserves to be allowed.

15. It is directed, that the accused Ritik, Ashwini and Albaj/juveniles through their guardian-father be released on bail in Crime No.445/2023

registered at Police Station - Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain for commission of offences punishable under Section 457, 380 of the IPC upon furnishing personal bond of their father of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety each of his relative in the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ujjain on the following conditions:-

(1) During bail period, applicants/juveniles will remain in their supervision and control and they shall be responsible for their maintenance, well being and other activities.

(2) Father of the applicants shall undertake that upon release on bail juveniles 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 father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence. Juvenile will pursue their study and not allowed to waste their time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits.

(3) Juveniles and natural guardian/father 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 juveniles 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/father shall also ensure of the appearance of the Juveniles before J.J. Board on all the dates fixed by it till the final disposal of the case pending before it.

16. With the aforesaid, the Criminal Revision is allowed and disposed

off.

C.C. as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Trilok/-