Jitendra vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—Heard.

Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Criminal Appeal No. 141/2014, whereby the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board on 14.3.2014 has been affirmed, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision u/s 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

The facts giving rise to this revision petition in brief are that on 21.2.14 the complainant alongwith his brother and Pradeep Sharma were talking at Dharmkata with the labourers. Bhupendra Singh son of Jaswant Singh, Lavkush, Bhupendra Singh Gurjar and one another came on motorcycle and stopped the motorcycle. Bhupendra Singh Gurjar, who was sitting in the middle on motorcycle, fired at the complainant, but the bullet hit to one labourer Pappu who was standing beside the complainant. Pappu fell down and thereafter Bhupendra also fired two shots which passed through near the complainant. Thereafter, they ran away on motorcycle. Injured Pappu was taken to hospital. Later on, he died. On the report, Crime No. 83/14 has been registered. The petitioner was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. An application was filed on behalf of the petitioner u/s 12 of the Act which was dismissed vide order dated 14.3.14. Against which the petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal No. 141/14 u/s 51 of the Act which has also been dismissed vide judgment dated 10.4.14. Being aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned judgment is illegal and against the settled principles of law. The petitioner is a juvenile and has no criminal history. There is no material available on record to hold that petitioner will come into contact with known criminals. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. No overt act has been alleged against the petitioner. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in dismissing the appeal. It is prayed that judgment and order of both the Courts below be set aside.

Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment submitting that petitioner is involved in a heinous crime, therefore, he cannot be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that provisions of Section 12 of the Act cannot be applied mechanically.

I have perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

It is not disputed that petitioner is a juvenile. In the FIR, applicant is not named. No overt act has been alleged against the petitioner.

Regarding bail to a juvenile, it is relevant to refer Section 12 of the Act, which reads as under:

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 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 expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

From the plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is crystal clear that if a juvenile accused is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall be released but he shall not be so released if 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 would defeat the ends of justice. Thus, every juvenile for whatsoever offence he is charged with, shall be released on bail except under the above circumstances.

The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the provisions of Section 12 of the Act cannot be applied mechanically. He has placed reliance on the decision rendered by Rajasthan High Court in Jaif Ahmed Sheikh Vs. State of Rajasthan, . It is true that the words "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973" only indicates that considerations which are germane for granting or refusing bail to persons who are not juvenile delinquent shall not come into play for granting or refusing bail to them. The juvenile delinquent has been separately protected by the Act for the reason of his age. The bail of a juvenile can be refused (i) if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or; (ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or; (iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

In the instant case, there is no material available on record showing any reasonable ground for believing that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, the judgment dated 10.4.14 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Criminal Appeal 141/14 and order dated 14.3.14 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board are set aside. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his father''s furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Juvenile Justice Board, for his appearance before the trial Court.

Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and disposed of.