Madhya Pradesh High Court
Child In Conflict With Law Aged About 17 ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 May, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 28 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1911 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
THROUGH GUARDIAN FATHER SHRI RAJESH SINGH
TOMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O POOTH WALI
ROAD GALI NO 2 AMBAH DISTRICT MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS. AYUSHI VYAS - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE
STATION THROUGH POLICE STATION AMBAH,
DISTRICT MORENA M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MR. ROHIT SHRIVASTAVA - PANEL LAWYER)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Present is criminal revision petition filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the judgment dated
10.4.2024 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Criminal
Appeal No. 79/2024, by which, the order dated 23.3.2024 passed by Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Morena (M.P.) has been affirmed thereby
rejecting the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist for offence
registered at Crime No.110 of 2024, Police Station Ambah, District Morena
under Sections 307, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms
Act.
Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in this case. Report of the Probationary Officer
is positive. It is submitted that the revisionist is a juvenile and there is no
dispute with respect to the age of the present revisionist. It is submitted that
provision of bail to Juvenile is given under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice
Act. It is apparently clear that looking to the age of the revisionist, as he is a
juvenile, benefit of bail should be extended to him even in heinous offences. It is
argued that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have
rejected the bail of the present revisionist which is against the facts of the case
and the material available on record. It is further argued that the Juvenile Board
as well as the Appellate Court have not considered the prime object of the
provisions of first proviso to Section 12 (1) of Act which makes the gravity of
the offence committed by a juvenile, irrelevant to a plea for bail on his behalf
that has to be judged on the parameters prescribed by Section 12 (1) but
without considering the same, learned Appellate Court as well as Juvenile
Justice Board rejected the bail application of the revisionist. Further argument is
that the father of the juvenile has filed his affidavit that he shall look after his
child if the juvenile is given into his custody. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to
the revisionist.
O n the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State
vehemently opposed the revision and prayed for its rejection looking to the
gravity of offence.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
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
Code of Criminal Procedure, 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.'
From perusal of the aforesaid section, it is apparently clear that juvenile
can be extended bail even in heinous offences. The object of framing the
Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 is required to be seen.
Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case
a n d coupled with the object of Juvenile Justice Act, this Court deems it
appropriate to allow the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and it is
directed that custody of the revisionist be handed over to the father of the
revisionist who is directed to take proper care of the child in conflict.
Consequently, the order impugned dated 23.3.2024 passed by the
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Morena and the impugned
impugned dated 10.4.2024 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Morena (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.79/2024 are hereby set aside and the
prayer for grant of bail to the delinquent juvenile through his father who is
guardian of the child in conflict is allowed.
Let the revisionist through his natural guardian/father be released on bail
in Crime No. 110/2024 registered at Police Station Ambah, District Morena for
the offences punishable under Sections 307, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC and
Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act on his father furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) with two local solvent sureties in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Morena (M.P.) with
an undertaking that in case the delinquent juvenile is released on bail and is given
in custody of his father/brother, he will not create any situation which will bring
the delinquent juvenile into association with any known criminal or expose to
him moral, physical and psychological danger or any situation when the
delinquent juvenile may repeat the offence in question and he will work for
improvement of the delinquent juvenile.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed and disposed of.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following
conditions by the revisionist :-
1. The revisionist will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
bond executed by him;
2. The revisionist will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may
be;
3. The revisionist will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer,
as the case may be;
4. The revisionist shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused.
5. The revisionist will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
and
6. The revisionist will not leave India without previous permission of the
trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
7. It is further directed that parents of revisionist shall take responsibility
of his conduct and would submit report of conduct of revisionist every month
to the Probation Officer, Office of District Child Protection Officer, District
Morena (M.P.) and revisionist would not intimidate or threat to anyone in any
manner, else the benefit of bail granted by this Court shall be withdrawn
immediately. Parents of revisionist shall ensure that the child in conflict with law
would indulge himself in creative, sports and educational activities and try to
pursue some creative learning so that he may learn the skill to sustain himself.
Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the
Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and
necessary action.
E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance,
if possible, by the office of this Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
AKS
