Sanjeev @ Chhotu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

None for the complainant even though application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed.

In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19

outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This Criminal Revision has been preferred by Sanjeev @ Chhotu, a child in conflict with law under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereafter referred to as the ''Act') assailing the judgment and order dated 24/10/19 passed by Sessions Judge,

Vidisha in Criminal Appeal No. 52/2019, dismissing the revisionist's appeal under Section 101 of the Act from an order of the Juvenile Justice Board

dated 03.10.2019, rejecting the revisionist's plea for bail pending trial.

The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 04/05/19, a complaint was lodged to the effect that the complainant along with his friend Ankit Panthi,

Abhishek Raghuvanshi and Ansul Sharma had gone to Dhabba for taking dinner. At about 9.30 Pm, the applicant along with his friends Shubham

Raghuvanshi and Roshan Rajput came on a scooty and sat near the complainant table and started starring on them. The complainant asked the

accused that why they are starring on them, on which, the accused started beating them. Shubam assaulted the complainant by stone, due to which, he

sustained injury. The complainant was taken by his friends in the nearby medical store for giving him first aid. At that time, the present applicant fired

a gun shot by means of Katta on the chest of Ansul Sharma. The co-accused Roshan and Shubam also committed marpeet with the victim. Due to

gun shot injury Ansul Sharma died. On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested. Thereafter, the

accused/applicant moved an application under section 12 of the Act for release on bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, which was rejected vide

order dated 03/10/19. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Court of Session which has come to be rejected by the impugned

order dated 24/10/19 affirming the order dated 03/10/19 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Assailing the orders passed by the Courts below, the

present revision has been preferred.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the learned Juvenile Justice Board, as well as, the appellate Court have committed error in rejecting

the bail application, therefore, both the orders are required to be set aside. It is submitted that the applicant is a boy of 17 years and if kept in judicial

custody for long, he may become a habitual offender. He does not have any criminal antecedents. It is submitted that the father of the applicant

undertakes to take proper care of the child, impart him education and keep him away from criminals. With the above submissions, it is prayed that this

revision may be allowed and the applicant may be released on bail.

The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer. It is submitted that the applicant does not have any interest in studies. He is not in control of his

parents. The report of the Probation Officer suggests that the applicant should be kept in Observation Home only so that he does not get involved in

other criminal activities or comes in contact with criminals. Attention has also been invited to the fact that katta was recovered from the possession of

the applicant.

Looking to the nature of offence and there being sufficient material available on record against the applicant, it would not be proper to release him on

bail at this stage. As such, the orders passed by the Courts below are affirmed and this revision petition stands dismissed.