Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lavkush Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16941
1 CRR-5664-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5664 of 2024
LAVKUSH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Kuldeep Singh - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Manoj Kushwaha - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
None for the complainant/objector.
.......................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 26.03.2025
Pronounced on : 08.04.2025
ORDER
This revision petition has been preferred under Section 102 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter
referred to as "J.J. Act, 2015") assailing the appeal judgment dated
17.10.2024 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol (MP) in
Criminal Appeal No.100/2024 ( Lavkush Yadav Vs. State of M.P. ),
whereby the appeal preferred by juvenile in conflict with law against the
order dated 27.09.2024 passed in RCT No.72/2024 (State of M.P. Vs.
Lavkush Yadav ) by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16941
2 CRR-5664-2024
Shahdol, District Shahdol (MP) has been dismissed and order rejecting
the bail application of the juvenile in conflict with law in relation to FIR
bearing Crime No.204/2024 of Police Station Sidhi, Shahdol (MP) for
commission of offence under Sections 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(B) of the Arms Act, has been affirmed.
2. As per the allegations, on 01.08.2024, dead-body of Manish Gupta
S/o Manoj Gupta aged about 15 years old alongwith blood stain, soil,
leaves & hairs etc. was seized. In post-mortem report, cause of death was
shown severe hemorrhage due to injuries over head. Ashish (brother of
deceased Manish) in his statement stated that on 30.07.2024, his brother
Manish (since deceased) at around 04:30 pm had gone towards river side
to answer the call of nature and at around 06:30 pm, when he also went
towards that side; almost 100 meter before the river, he found his brother
Manish lying on the earth, he was having injuries on his right cheek and
cut wound on the head. Injury was also visible on little finger of his right
hand. Blood was lying and Manish was found in unconscious condition.
Marg intimation was recorded. In Marg inquiry, it revealed that Lavkush
Yadav (Present applicant) had murdered Manish Gupta by giving Tangi
blows. Incident was witnessed by Nageshwar Singh. It is alleged that on
30.07.2024 on the day of incident, Lavkush had attempted to hand over
the weapon of offence to Rajbhan Singh stating that he has committed
murder. FIR was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet has been
filed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16941
3 CRR-5664-2024
3. Child in conflict with law at time time of commission of offence was
found to be 13 years, 11 months & 25 days old in age. The charge-sheet
was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board. The social investigation
report was called, wherein, it is observed by the Probationary Officer that
juvenile in conflict with law is aged about 13 years, 11 months & 25
days and is a student of Class-IX. His father is a panchyat chowkidar.
There is no other complaint against him. His behaviour with the teachers
and classmates is good. After school, he engages himself in studies and
domestic work. His behaviour and conduct is satisfactory. He has interest
in reading science subject. He has no criminal background. He is not a
drug addict. It was also informed that on the date of incident, deceased
had assaulted him and only then he wielded Tangi; but all of sudden, it
hit the head of deceased and thereafter, he fled away from the spot. It was
also observed in social investigation report that there is no tension in the
village. However, for the safety of child, father of juvenile with conflict
with law wanted to keep him in his relatives' house. Incident was not
pre-mediated. Considering his education and conduct, his rehabilitation is
possible and his family rehabilitation would be in his best interest.
However, learned Juvenile Justice Board declined the application under
Section 12 of the J.J. Act for grant of bail filed on behalf of the juvenile
before the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that his release may
endanger his safety as threats are being extended.
4. An appeal was preferred on behalf of juvenile before the Court of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16941
4 CRR-5664-2024
Sessions. Learned Is t Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol by the
impugned judgment has dismissed the appeal on the ground that his
release may endanger his life, therefore, if he is released on bail,
possibility of threat to his life cannot be ruled out.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that at the time of
commission of offence, juvenile was below 14 years of age. He has no
criminal antecedent(s). He is innocent. He has falsely been implicated
without any material evidence. Case is based on circumstantial evidence
and eye-witness has been planted after two-three days of the incident.
Learned Courts below have not taken into consideration the fact that
there is no eye-witness account and eye-witness has been planted. It is
further submitted that there is no material on record to show that if
the juvenile is released on bail, his release is likely to bring him into
association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical,
or psychological danger, or that his release will defeat the ends of justice.
No such findings were recorded as to how, he will come in contact with
known criminal and as to how, he would expose to moral, physical, or
psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
It is also contended that father of the juvenile is ready to give undertaking
that if juvenile is released on bail, he will keep him in custody and will
take his proper care. It is further submitted that learned Juvenile Justice
Board as well as the Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the
facts of the case and have passed the impugned orders in a cursory
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16941
5 CRR-5664-2024
manner without considering the object of the law enacted for the benefit
of the juvenile and have refused to release the juvenile on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the
findings recorded in impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts
below and has contended that the juvenile has committed a heinous
offence in a preplanned manner and incident is witnessed by another
child witness, who has narrated the entire incident after two-three days.
The juvenile in conflict with law is not simple and he has mentality to
commit the offence and to screen the evidence. Thus, considering the
gravity of the offence, it is prayed that juvenile in conflict with law may
not be released on bail and the present criminal revision filed on behalf
of the juvenile may be dismissed.
7. I have heard rival submissions put-forth by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
8. It is undisputed that at the time of commission of offence, juvenile in
conflict with law was 13 years, 11 months & 25 days old in age. Learned
Juvenile Justice Board and learned Additional Sessions Judge/Children
Court have taken into consideration the gravity of crime committed by
the juvenile. They have also taken the note of the report of Probationary
Officer, but have not considered the fact that in the report of
Probationary Officer, nowhere it is mentioned that juvenile in conflict
with law has any criminal background or he is addict of any drug or
other narcotic substances. On the contrary, from the social investigation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16941
6 CRR-5664-2024
report of Probationary Officer, it is apparent that juvenile has no criminal
background, he is cool & calm and his behaviour with teachers &
schoolmates is good. He is in observation home for more than a period of
eight months and in this period, his conduct has been found positive &
normal. Thus, there was nothing for the Courts below to infer that release
of juvenile would defeat in any way the ends of justice or his release is
likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose
him to moral, physical, or psychological danger. In lack of material on
record, the findings recorded by the Courts below are not justified.
9. Before considering the legality, correctness and propriety of the
order passed by the Courts below, it would be useful to look at 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16941
7 CRR-5664-2024
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
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."
10. 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.
11. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 of "J.J. Act,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16941
8 CRR-5664-2024
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.
12. In case of Narayan Sharma Vs. State of MP ILR (2012) MP 796 A
Coordinate 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16941
9 CRR-5664-2024
to the juvenile, both pre and post crime and it is only
thereafter the Board or the Court should crystallized 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."
13. It has been observed in Pratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand &
another 2005 SCC (Criminal) 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."
14. Further it has been observed in Sanjay Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P.
and another 2006 (55) SCC 480 that:-
"10. In case of the refusal of the bail, some reasonable
grounds for believing above mentioned xx 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 teen
brought by the prosecution before the Juvenile Justice
Board and appellate court. The appellate court dismissed
the appeal only oh the presumption that due to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16941
10 CRR-5664-2024
commission of this of fence, 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 bell of the
revisionist which is In the present case is unjustified and
against the spirit of the Act."
15. Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in case of Karan Vs. State of
MP in Cr.R. No. 5159/2018 decided on 14.01.2019 and Girdhar Vs. State
of MP in Cr.R. No. 509/2021 decided on 17.03.2021 has 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.
16. Section 13(1)(ii) of "JJ Act, 2015" provides that the Probation
Officer shall submit a social investigation report within two weeks from
when a child is apprehended or brought to the Board, containing
information regarding the antecedents and family background of the child
and other material circumstances likely to be of assistance to the Board
for making the inquiry. The "social investigation report" which has been
defined in Rule 2(xvii) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16941
11 CRR-5664-2024
Children) Model Rules, 2016, means the report of a child containing
detailed information pertaining to the circumstances of the child, the
situation of the child on economic, social, psycho-social and other
relevant factors, and the recommendation thereon. This report becomes
important for the inquiry to be done by the Board while passing such
orders in relation to such a child as it deems fit under Sections 17 and 18
of this Act. The purpose behind this provision is to enable the Juvenile
Justice Board to get a glimpse of the social circumstances of the child
before any order regarding bail or of any other nature is passed.
17. 'Form-6' of the Model Rules, 2016, contains a detailed proforma of
the social investigation report. The social investigation report submitted
by Probation Officer and Child Welfare Officer and it is incumbent upon
the juvenile Justice Board to take into consideration the social
investigation report and make an objective assessment on the reasonable
grounds for rejecting the bail application of the juvenile.
18. In this case, as per the recital of the F.I.R., statements of the
witnesses and other material on record, it is apparent that the report was
lodged against unknown person; but later juvenile has been enroped on
basis of statement of another child witness who has stated to be present
over there. Undisputedly, the death of the deceased was homicidal in
nature, but it cannot be overlooked that juvenile in conflict with law has
no criminal background. It is his first offence. He is below 14 years of
age. He is good in studies and has inclination towards science subject.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16941
12 CRR-5664-2024
His behaviour and conduct with the teachers, schoolmates and others is
satisfactory. It is settled position of law that while considering the bail
application of a juvenile, the gravity of offence alone cannot be a ground
to reject the bail application. Juvenile is in observation home for last
more than eight months. As per the social investigation report, his
conduct and bebaviour is good and he is cool and calm in nature. After
study in school, he concentrates himself on studies and domestic work.
Therefore, I am of the view that considering the overall facts, the view
taken by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate Court in the
impugned judgment and order dismissing the applications for giving the
Juvenile on Supurdagi have not properly appreciated the mandatory
provisions of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015 as well as other provisions
in relation to juvenile and have declined to grant bail merely on the basis
of unfounded apprehension and gravity of offence. In the absence of any
material or evidence with reasonable grounds it cannot be said that his
release would defeat the ends of justice. Thus, it is explicit that Juvenile
Justice Board and appellate Court both have not recorded the findings on
the three contingencies for declining the bail to the juvenile. Therefore, I
am of the considered view that the order dated 27.09.2024 passed in RCT
No.72/2024 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Shahdol in relation to FIR
bearing Crime No.204/2024 of Police Station Sidhi, District Shahdol and
appeal judgment dated 17.10.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.100/2024 by the Appellate Court are not sustainable. Hence, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16941
13 CRR-5664-2024
above order/appeal judgment are set aside and present criminal revision
filed on behalf of juvenile is allowed as juvenile's father is ready to take
care of the juvenile.
19. It is directed that juvenile in conflict with the law be released on
bail in relation to FIR bearing Crime No.204/2024 of Police Station
Sidhi, Shahdol (MP) for commission of offence under Sections 103(1) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(B) of the Arms Act , upon
furnishing a personal bond of his father of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties of his relatives in the amount of the
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of
Juvenile Justice Board, Shahdol (MP) subject to the following
conditions:-
(1) During bail period, applicant/juvenile in conflict
with law will remain in supervision and control of his
father and he shall be responsible for his maintenance,
well being and other activities.
(2) Juvenile's father shall undertake that upon release
on bail juvenile 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 he will ensure that the juvenile will not
repeat the offence.
(3) Applicant/Juvenile in conflict with law 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 need it.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16941
14 CRR-5664-2024
(4) Juvenile's father shall also ensure of the
appearance of the Juvenile (applicant) before J.J. Board
on all the dates fixed by it till the final disposal of the
case pending before it.
20. This criminal revision is allowed accordingly.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
@shish
