Madhya Pradesh High Court
Child In Conflict Of Law Since Minor ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 October, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1 CRR-4571-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRR No. 4571 of 2025
(CHILD IN CONFLICT OF LAW SINCE MINOR (AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS) THROUGH GUARDIAN UNCLE
SUNEEL VERMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 08-10-2025
Shri Shashwat Rao, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Akhand Pratap Singh, Panel Lawyer for State.
Heard on I.A. No.21512/2025, which is an application for grant of interim
bail.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that juvenile in this case facing
long incarceration which will be negatively impact the mind and conscience of the
juvenile. He is permanent resident of District Datia and his entire movable and
immovable property are situated there. There is no possibility of his absconsion.
Hence, he prayed that petitioner be enlarged on interim bail till final disposal of
this criminal appeal.
3. Counsel for petitioner relied upon the case of Vipul Kumar Dwivedi Vs.
State of M.P., passed in MISC. Criminal Case No.14659 of 2022 order dated
24.3.2022 and also in the case of Komal Kori Vs. The State of M.P. and Others,
passed in MISC. Criminal Case No.2095/2025 order dated 11.2.2025.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for State opposes the prayer and prays for its
rejection.
5. From perusal of case diary and other documents, it appears that offence
under Section 109(1), 296 and 3(5) of BNS has been registered against juvenile in
conflict and he has been taken into custody. His application for grant of bail under
Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act( in short 'JJA') has been dismissed vide order
dated 3.9.2025. Then, he preferred criminal appeal before Special Judge(POCSO
2 CRR-4571-2025
Act), Datia but same has been also dismissed by affirming the impugned order
passed by trial Court. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has preferred
this criminal appeal and also I.A. No.21512/2025 for grant of interim bail on
behalf of juvenile.
6. 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
6 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.
3 CRR-4571-2025
7. 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."
8. 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
9. From perusal of case diary and other documentary evidence, it appears
that child in conflict is the main accused. He has fired upon the victim and a local
katta has been recovered from his possession. Report of Probation Officer is not
received yet, but looking to the nature of offence and his surrounding, it appears
that there is a reasonable ground for believing that release of child in conflict
would bring him in the association with any known criminal or expose him to
immoral, psychological and physical danger because already three offences has
been registered against him and no improvement has been shown in his attitude
and conduct.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that
impugned orders passed by trial Court as well as First Appellate Court is just and
4 CRR-4571-2025
proper and does not deserve for any interference and no case is made out for
interim bail of child in conflict.
11. Hence, I.A. No.21512/2025 is rejected.
Matter be listed after six weeks.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
"R"
