Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 17TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 533 of 2024
AJAY CHOUDHARY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
(Shri Dhiresh Singh Dubey - Advocate for the applicant)
(Shri R.P. Prajapati - Panel lawyer for the respondent/State)
___________________________________________________________
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
24.01.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Anuppur (MP) in Criminal
Appeal No.05/2024, whereby the appeal preferred by juvenile in conflict
with law against the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Anuppur (MP) has been dismissed and
order rejecting the bail application of the juvenile in conflict with law in
relation to FIR bearing Crime No.210/2023 of Police Station Bhalumada,
District Anuppur for commission of offence udner Sections 294, 307, 302
of IPC has been affirmed.
2. As per the allegations, on 24.05.2023, complainant Ashok Choudhary
was lying on his cot in his room. Phool Singh Gond was also lying there on
earth. At around 2:00-2:30 P.M. juvenile in conflict with law armed with
spade came and asked him that yesterday why he had quarreled with his
father and gave spade blow on the head of Ashok Choudhary. Hearing the
scream of Ashok Choudhary, Phool Singh got up and asked Ashok to fled
away, but juvenile in conflict with law gave another blow on his head.
Phool Singh caught hold juvenile in conflict with law with an intention to
save Ashok Choudhary. Ashok Choudhary fled away and reached his
younger brother Bandhu Choudhary's house and narrated entire story to
him. He took Ashok to hospital. Later, Bandhu informed him that his wife
told him that Phool Singh was found lying dead on the cot of his room and
his body was lying in pool of blood. FIR was registered.
3. In the course of investigation, juvenile in conflict with law was
apprehended. On the basis of his disclosure, the spade used in commission
of crime was recovered from his elder father's house. After investigation,
charge sheet has been filed and he is in detention since 25.05.2023.
Juvenile in conflict with law at the time of commission of offence was
found to be 17 years and 7-8 months old. The charge sheet was filed
before Juvenile Justice Board. The social investigation report was called,
wherein it was observed that juvenile in conflict with law is disciplined and
his behavior with other inmates is good and his character is also good. An
application under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015 was preferred before the
Juvenile Justice Board, but same was dismissed by the Principal Judge,
Juvenile Justice Board. He was sent to the Remand Home, Seoni and in the
report received from Seoni, it is reported that he is of good character and
his behavior is good and he has good relations with others.
4. An appeal was preferred on behalf of the juvenile in conflict with
law before the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge by impugned
judgement has dismissed the appeal on the ground that his father is also
having some criminal background. There is no possibility of delay in trial.
Therefore, if he is released on bail, possibility of his coming into
association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical, or
psychological danger cannot be ruled out and his release would defeat the
ends of justice.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that at the time of
commission of offence juvenile was below 18 years of age. He has no
criminal antecedents. He is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It is
further submitted that learned Courts below have not taken into
consideration that applicant is not a habitual offender and the incident has
taken place on account of provocation given by injured Ashok by doing ill
behavior with his father. It is further submitted that there is no evidence 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 and his release would defeat the
ends of justice. No such findings were recorded by the Courts below to
show as to how he will come into contact with known criminals or as to
how his release will expose him to moral, physical, or psychological
danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is further
submitted 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 appellate Court have not properly appreciated the facts of the case
and have passed impugned orders in a cursory manner without considering
the object of the law enacted for the benefit of the juvenile and had refused
to release the juvenile on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported
impugned judgement and order passed by the Courts below and has
contended that the juvenile has committed a heinous offence in a pre-
planned manner as he armed with the spade banged into the room of Ashok
Choudhary and gave repeated spade blow on cot and head of Ashok and
when Phool Singh came for his rescue, he committed his murder. He has
also submitted that juvenile has now completed 18 years of age. Therefore,
it has been prayed that considering the gravity of offence, 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 17 years and 7-8 months old. Learned Juvenile
Justice Board and learned Sessions Judge have taken into consideration the
gravity of offence committed by the juvenile. They have also taken note of
the report of the Probationary Officer but have not considered the fact that
in the report of Probationary Officer and in Police report nowhere it is
mentioned that juvenile in conflict with law has any criminal background
or he is addict of any drug or narcotic substance. On the contrary, from the
Social Investigation Report of the Probationary Officer, it is apparent that
juvenile has no criminal background. He is cooperative and his behavior
with other inmates in the remand home is good. He mingles with them and
his behavior and character is good. His conduct has been found positive.
Thus, there was nothing for the Courts below to infer that release of
juvenile would defeat the ends of justice in any way 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 does not appear justified.
9. Before considering the legality, correctness and propriety of the orders
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 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,
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,
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 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 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 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 the case in hand, as per the recital of Dehati Nalisi, FIR and
statement of the injured witness and other material on record, it is apparent
that it was the juvenile in conflict with law who caused injuries to Ashok
Choudhary and committed murder of Phool Singh. The death of the
deceased was homicidal in nature. The injuries sustained by Ashok
Choudhary was also grievous in nature, but same are matter of evidence.
However, it cannot be overlooked that juvenile has no criminal
background. It is his first offend. It is settled position of law that while
considering the bail application of a juvenile, the gravity of offence alone
cannot be sole ground to reject the bail application. The juvenile is in
remand home for the last 2 years. As per the Probationary Officer Report
and Social Investigating Report his conduct is good and he is cooperative
and mingles with all other inmates and his nature is also good. He has no
criminal background. Therefore, considering the overall facts, the view
taken by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate Court in the
impugned judgement and order dismissing the applications for giving
juvenile on Supurdagi appears to have not been properly appreciated in the
light of 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.
19. 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
08.01.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Anuppur in relation to
FIR bearing Crime No.210/2023 of Police Station Bhalumada, District
Anuppur and appeal judgment dated 24.01.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.05/2024 by the Appellate Court are not sustainable. Hence, the above
orders 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.
20. It is directed that juvenile in conflict with the law be released on bail
in relation to FIR bearing Crime No.210/2023 of Police Station
Bhalumada, District Anuppur for commission of offence under Sections
294, 307, 302 of IPC, upon furnishing a personal bond of his father of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties of his
relatives in the amount of the Rs.25,000/- 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board,
Anuppur (M.P.) subject to the following conditions:-
(1) During bail period, applicant/juvenile in conflict with law
will remain in their supervision and control and they 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.
(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.
21. This criminal revision is allowed accordingly.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
Jasleen
