Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tejwali @ Lallan Prajapati vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 2020
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Cr.R. No. 1695/2020
Tejwali @ Lallan Prajapati
Vs
State of Madhya Pradesh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the child in
conflict with law.
Shri Dharmendra Kaurav, learned P.L. for the
respondent/State.
Shri Alok Jain, learned counsel for the objector.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(20.11.2020) This revision petition has been filed by the child in conflict with law under the provision of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (herein after referred as 'Act 2015'), however, same was wrongly mentioned by the petitioner as Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Since, the offence had occurred in the year 2019, therefore, the provisions of Act 2015 shall be applied in the case.
2Cr.R. No. 1695/2020
2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.05.2020 in Criminal Appeal No.43/2020 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/4th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna arising out of order dated 22.05.2020 in Case No.232/2019 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Satna whereby the Magistrate has rejected the prayer of bail made by the revisionist. The learned Appellate Court has also affirmed the order of Principal Magistrate, Satna.
3. As per prosecution case, a missing complaint of deceased-Vikas was lodged on 16.08.2019 by his uncle-Sumati Kumhar. Further, a ransom demand of Rs.10 lakh was also made by unknown person to father of deceased. During investigation, on the basis of input received from cyber cell, police arrested the applicant and recorded his memorandum statement. It is found in the investigation that under conspiracy, applicant and other co- accused kidnapped the deceased on temptation for getting ransom and thereafter to hide the evidence, they caused his death by throwing him into well.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the Courts below committed grave error of law in not releasing the applicant on bail. He submits that the Courts below overlooked the provision of Section 12 of Act 2015 wherein the seriousness of 3 Cr.R. No. 1695/2020 offence is immaterial. He further argued that the child in conflict with law shall only not be released on bail if there appears reasonable ground for believing that, the release is likely to bring him into association with any criminal or cause any physical or psychological danger for him. He submits that as per report of Probationary Officer, child in conflict with law is having good behaviour. It is suggested in the report that the revisionist requires attention of his parents on account of his illness. The learned Courts below have denied prayer of bail on the ground of seriousness of crime which is irrelevant factor for adjudication of bail application filed by the child in conflict with law. On merit, he argued that revisionist has been made as an accused in the case only on the basis of suspicion. No ingredients are available to constitute the aforesaid offences. He submits that revisionist is a student and if he is not released on bail, his future would be ruined as well as object of the Act, 2015 will be frustrated. With the aforesaid, he prays to allow this revision petition.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as counsel for the objector oppose the petition submitting that offence involved in the case is heinous in nature and if the revisionist is released on bail it would defeat the ends of justice. It is further argued by learned counsel for the 4 Cr.R. No. 1695/2020 objector that family members of revisionist are threatening the witnesses and pertaining to this, Jyoti Prajapati daughter of prosecution witness Amit Prajapati has filed a written complaint before Superintendent of Police, Satna. The revisionist is having main role in aforesaid crime and he does not deserves any sympathy being juvenile. With the aforesaid, they pray to reject the said petition.
6. Heard and perused the matter.
7. Under the Act 2015, Section 12 facilitates bail to child in conflict with law with certain parameters. Further, the burden on the prosecution to show that on the parameters specified in the provisio to Section 12 (1) of Act 2015, bail should be denied to a juvenile. As per Section 12 of Act 2015, a juvenile shall be released on bail, but he may not be so released if there appears reasonable ground 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. The learned counsel for the revisionist raised the argument that the Courts below have rejected the prayer of bail of revisionist on the ground of gravity of offence which is irrelevant in view of Section 12 of Act 2015. 5 Cr.R. No. 1695/2020
8. On perusal of impugned order, it appears that learned Appellate Court has rejected the bail application not only the ground of gravity but also on the basis of apprehension about association of revisionist with known criminals and his release would defeat the ends of justice. In the case of Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2012) 5 SCC 201, Hon'ble the Apex Court has expressed its due concern in the matters relating to juvenile where the offence are heinous like rape, murder, gang rape etc and stated that "...subverting the course of justice as statutory protection of the Juvenile Justice Act is meant for minors who are innocent law-breakers and not the accused of matured mind who use the plea of minority as a ploy or shield to protect himself from the sentence of the offence committed by him."
9. There is no doubt in the mind of Court that under Act 2015, generally bail is the rule and it is a beneficial legislation intended for reform of the juvenile, but the law also demands that justice should be done not only the accused, but also to the victims.
10. Here in the case, the allegation against the present revisionist is that he along with other co-accused is involved in demanding ransom and murder of deceased who is aged about 13 6 Cr.R. No. 1695/2020 years. As per prosecution, revisionist designed a plan to execute their ill motive and in furtherance of it, the accused persons kidnapped the deceased and murdered him thereafter and to hide the evidence, they threw his body into a well. As per impugned order, revisionist is aged about 17 years and 8 months, however, the order is silent about preliminary assessment of revisionist as per Sections 15 and 18 of Act 2015 to determine need for trial of revisionist as an adult.
11. The report of Probationary Officer does not indicate any adverse remark regarding behaviour of revisionist but in the light of above statutory provision and principle, bail prayer of the revisionist has to be considered on the surrounding facts and circumstances. Merely by declaration of being a juvenile does not entitle a child in conflict with law to be released on bail as a matter of right. In the case of Virendra Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2015 (1) ACR 629, the High Court of Allahabad has considered the related provision in detail under the case relating to heinous crimes and held as under :-
"24. Rape/murder of a helpless and innocent child has been treated an aggravating factor, as held in the Macchi Sing's case (supra). While gravity of the offence cannot be considered under Section 12 of the Act but where rape is committed with helpless victim, a child followed by the murder, cruel mentality of the author is more than manifest. Murder was committed to save himself from the clutches of justice.Discretion of 7 Cr.R. No. 1695/2020 bail to such a person will obviously tantamount subverting the course of justice and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that it will be in ends of justice to grant bail to such a person.
25. Consequently, the offence like rape with child followed by murder, anti-national/sedition, Drug trafficking and other similar acts etc. would be the offences which reflect the criminal mind-set of the offender, as such, any discretion under Section 12 of the Act to such a person would amount to defeating the ends of justice."
12. The counsel for the objector has also drawn attention of this Court towards threats given to sister of deceased by the family members of child in conflict with law. Hence, possibility of tampering the evidence can not be ruled out. The anger of affected family members towards revisionist can also be an important factor to lead the child in conflict with law to physical and psychological danger.
13. In view of the aforesaid, granting bail to revisionist will not only expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger but would also lead to defeat the ends of justice.
14. Therefore, orders passed by Courts below do not warrant any interfere of this Court, consequently, this petition is hereby dismissed. However, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of four months.
(Rajendra Kumar Srivastava) Judge 8 Cr.R. No. 1695/2020 sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2020.11.24 16:57:27 +05'30'