Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vidhi Ka Ullanghan Karne Wala Balak Aged ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10221
1 CRR-1789-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1789 of 2025
VIDHI KA ULLANGHAN KARNE WALA BALAK AGED 17 YEARS 6
MONTH THROUGH SARPARST SMT REKHA YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Komal Chand Jakhodia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R. S. Yadav - P.P. for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision under section 102 of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 being aggrieved
by impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed by Special Judge POCSO
Act/11th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in criminal appeal no.
121/2025 whereby the appeal preferred by petitioners against the order dated
11.03.2025 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Gwalior
for the offences under section 108 of BNS has been rejected.
2. The facts giving rise to the present case are that the present
petitioner developed friendship with the prosecutrix/deceased and on
06.02.2025, when the prosecutrix came to meet the petitioner, then petitioner
informed her that his engagement has been solemnized. Them prosecutrix
asked him that if your engagement has been solemnized, them I will jump
from the fort and commit suicide. At that time, the petitioner provoked the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10221
2 CRR-1789-2025
deceased, due to which prosecutrix/deceased committed suicide and died on
the spot. During investigation, it has been gathered that due to the
provocation given by the juvenile, the deceased committed suicide.
Accordingly, aforesaid offence has been registered against the him and, his
being a juvenile, petitioner has been arrested on 02.03.2025 and produced
before the Juvenile Justice Board and thereafter he has been sent to juvenile
home.
3. Petitioner's mother has filed an application for bail/Supurdagi of the
juvenile under Section 12 of the Act, 2000 which has been dismissed by the
Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 11.03.2025. Petitioner, thereafter,
preferred an appeal against the impugned order, but the same was dismissed
vide order dated 18.03.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has
preferred this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned orders
passed by the courts below are contrary to law and facts. These are neither
legal nor correct. The juvenile was not involved in the aforesaid offence and
due to some previous enmity, he has been falsely implicated in this case.
Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. The victim/deceased
committed suicide due to the depression given by her parents. Petitioner is
not having any criminal past. He is a young boy aged 17 years. If he is
detained in custody, then his future will be badly affected. Final conclusion
of trial will take sufficient long time. Hence it is prayed that the impugned
orders be set aside and petitioner be released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for state opposes the prayer by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10221
3 CRR-1789-2025
submitting that offence committed by petitioners is very heinous in nature.
The Probation officer has also given some report which is in favour of
prosecution, therefore, on the basis of report given by probation
officer petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. Section 12 of the Act 2000 reads as under:
"12 - Bail of juvenile - (1) When any person accused of a bailable
or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or
detained or appears or is 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 1 [or placed
under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of
any fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if
there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is
likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or
exposehim to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his
release would defeat the ends of justice.
(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail
under sub- section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station,
such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation
home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a
Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1)
by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make
an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety
for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him
as may be specified in the order."
8. The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 conveys the intention
of this legislature to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of nature or gravity
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10221
4 CRR-1789-2025
of the offence alleged to have been committed by him and can be defined
only in the case where there appears reasonable grounds for believing that
the 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
shall defeat the ends of justice. In this context I have also scanned through
and perused the orders passed by the Courts below and FIR of the case.
9. In the matter of Manoj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2004 (2)
R.C.C. 995, Lal Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan (2006 (1) R.C.C. 167, Prakash
Vs. State of Rajasthan (2006 (1) RCC 337, Udaibhan Singh alias Bablu
Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2005 (4) Crimes 649 and Cr.R.No.70/2015
(Rabi Khan alias Salman Vs. State of M.P.) Rajkumar Vs. State of M.P.
2008 (1) MPWN Note 94, it has been held by the different High Courts that
if there are no allegations that release of delinquent juvenile on bail shall
bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger or that his release shall defeat the ends of
justice, he deserves to be released on bail and merits or nature of the offence
has no relevance while considering the bail application of delinquent
juvenile.
10. On going through the aforesaid citations, the legal position of
granting or rejecting bail to a delinquent juvenile is candidly clear. While
considering the bail application to juvenile provisions of section 12 of Act
2000 should be seen.
11. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the 6 criminal antecedents have been found against
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10221
5 CRR-1789-2025
the petitioner/juvenile and on the basis of report submitted by the
Probationary Officer, it appears that petitioner is involved in the criminal
activities, therefore, there is a possibility that if the petitioner is released on
bail, then his release may bring him in the association of any unknown
criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his
release would defeat the ends of justice.
12. Therefore, impugned judgments passed by the Appellate Court as
well as Juvenile Justice Board appear to be just and proper and both the
courts have not committed any jurisdictional error or illegality while passing
the impugned orders. Therefore, there is no scope for interference in the
impugned orders.
13. Hence, the instant petition sans merit and substance, is hereby
dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Vishal
