Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mintu @ Siryaaz Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2014
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. K. MUDGAL.
Cr. Revision No.1703/2014
Mintu @ Siryaaz Khan
Vs.
State of MP
For Applicant : Shri Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate with
Shri Rajkamal Chaturvedi, Advocate.
For Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, PP for the State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(01/12/2014) As per: Justice M.K. Mudgal, The applicant-accused has filed the criminal revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') being aggrieved by the order dated 7.8.2014 passed by the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No.253/2014 affirming the order dated 30.7.2014 passed by the Court of learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Chhatarpur in Criminal Case No.145/2014 dismissing an application filed by the applicant- accused under Section 12 of the Act for grant of bail.
2. As per the prosecution story, the applicant-accused alongwith co-accused person having common intention to commit murder of Shahid caused stab injuries to him by knife which resulted into his death. An FIR of Crime No.212/2014, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered at Police Station, Chhatarpur. After investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed. An application under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the applicant-accused being a juvenile for grant of bail. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 30.7.2014 by the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Board, Chhatarpur. The Criminal Appeal No.253/2014 filed by the applicant- accused was dismissed vide impugned order dated 7.8.2014.
23. Learned senior counsel assailing the legality and propriety of the impugned order and placing reliance upon the para 12 of the judgment dated 2.9.2013 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.584/2013 (Kishore Kunwar Raj vs. State of M.P.) has submitted that the learned appellate court as well as the trial court both have committed an error of law in dismissing the application filed by the applicant-accused for grant of bail on the ground of heinousness of the offence. As per Section 12 of the Act, a juvenile delinquent should be normally released on bail unless any one of the three grounds which read as under:
"(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."
is likely to be involved in the case to reject the application as held in the judgment of this court in the case of Rahul Mishra vs. State of MP, 2001 MPWN Vol. I Note 76.
4. The counsel further inviting the attention of this court to paras 17 to 19 of the impugned order has pleaded that the appellate court has rejected the application holding that the murder was committed in extremely brutal manner indicating the extremely cruel and criminal nature of the applicant accused. The said finding recorded by the learned appellate court for rejection of the application is not in consonance with the spirit of the Section 12 of the Act. The counsel further argues that in the instant case there are no circumstances on record indicating that if the applicant-accused is released on bail he would come in association with the criminal or he would expose himself to moral or physical or psychological danger as the applicant-accused after being released on bail would live safely with his family under the control of his guardian. The counsel further contends that so far as the third ground is concerned it is not made out in this case as the applicant-accused neither would abscond from the jurisdiction of this court or would interfere with the course of justice. Hence, in the said circumstances, the applicant-
3accused be released on bail and be handed over to his guardian for proper safe custody.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-accused has submitted that the findings recorded by the learned appellate court as well as by the trial court are just and proper. If the applicant-accused is granted bail, he would influence the witnesses of the case and considering the character of the applicant-accused and the circumstances in which he committed the brutal murder, no witness would come forward to depose his statement before the trial court, owing to which, in order to secure the end of justice, this revision filed by the applicant- accused be dismissed.
6. Arguments were considered.
7. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the applicant- accused was more than 16 years of age at the time of commission of the crime. It is true that the bail application of a juvenile offender cannot be decided and rejected on the ground of seriousness of the offence as per Section 12 of the Act and as observed in the judgment of this Court in Kishore Kunwar Raj vs. State of M.P. (Supra). It would not be proper to reject the bail application of the accused on the ground the appellate court has rejected it. It is also correct that there is no evidence on record indicating that if the accused is released on bail he would associate with the known criminal or expose himself to moral, physical or psychological danger. In this manner, the application of the applicant accused cannot be rejected on the first two grounds referred to earlier but, however, so far as the third ground is concerned his being at large would defeat the end of justice from a comprehensive point of view by his being put in a position to scar the witnesses from coming forward for having their evidence recorded and the case being adjudged properly. As per allegations, the dire cruelty with which he committed the murder in public place and in broad day light by causing 24 injuries to the deceased must have put terror in the hearts of the witnesses and it would be natural for them not to come forward for giving evidence if the applicant-accused is at large. This cannot but defeat the end of justice.
48. Keeping the above consideration in view, it would not be proper to interfere in the impugned order for not releasing the applicant-accused on bail. Therefore, the revision is hereby dismissed.
(M.K. Mudgal) YS/ Judge YS/ 5 Writ Petition No.9618/2010 In the aforesaid writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to respondent No.3 to permit her to appear in second round of conselling which was scheduled to be held on 24.6.2010 for a seat in M.S. Gynaecology in compliance of order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6621/2010.
2. The respondents have filed the return in which it has been stated that the petitioner has already appeared in the second counseling on 24.6.2010 in compliance of the order passed by the Court.
3. Thus, the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous as she has already been permitted to appear in the second round of counselling.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(S.R.Alam) (Alok Aradhe)
Chief Justice Judge
RM
therefore, the Common Entrance Test is held with the object to bring all the candidates to an equal platform so that their inter se merit can be adjudged. A close scrutiny of Rule 1.19(2)(b) of the Rules reveals that in case two or more candidates obtain equal marks then the merit has to be decided firstly on the basis of marks secured by candidate in part "B" of the question paper i.e. the candidate who secured more marks in part 'B' of the question paper has to be kept higher in merit. However, if both the candidates secured equal marks even in part "B" of the question paper then the candidates older in age is placed higher in inter se 6 merit. The age of candidate is prescribed as the last criteria for placement in merit, not the first criteria, as the first criteria, is the marks obtained by a candidate in Part 'B' examination. From perusal of the rules framed by several institution/States which have been relied upon by the petitioners themselves we find that candidates have to be given preference on the basis of age if they secure equal marks. For instance, we may refer to Clause 12.2.C of the Rules framed by All India Institute of Medical Sciences which provides that if candidates obtain equal marks in the examination, the candidate older in age would get preference. Similarly, the Rules framed by PGI Chandigarh annexed as Annexure-P-14 also contain similar provision. Similar provision exists in the Rules framed by State of Karnataka as well as Banaras Hindu University. Therefore, it appears that in all the Entrance Examination Rules framed by various authorities, age has been made the basis for granting preference in case candidates secure equal marks. Therefore, the same appears to be an acceptable criteria. That apart, some criteria is required to be provided for determining inter se merit of candidates if they secure equal marks. In our view the marks obtained in MBBS examination cannot be prescribed as a criteria as same would defeat the object of holding the Common Entrance Test. For the reasons which we have already mentioned supra, we do not find that Rule