Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shakti Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2019
1 CRR-266-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRR-266-2019
(SHAKTI CHOUDHARY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 05-02-2019
Shri Aditya Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Hemlata Kshatriya, learned PL for the respondent/State.
This revision has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved from the order dated 07.01.2019 passed in Cr.A. No. 03/2019 by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Katni, District-Katni affirming the order dated 24.08.2018 passed by learned Principal Juvenile Magistrate, Katni, District- Katni (M.P.). Learned Principal Juvenile Magistrate, Katni rejected the bail application.
The prosecution case in brief is that Dwarka Prasad Chadar was posted as police Inspector GRP, Katni. On 03/10/2018, he received an information that petitioner-accused and others were transporting poisonous liquor. After receiving this information he reached at the spot with other police officials, juvenile has restricted poisonous liquor, which was seized from his possession. Crime No. 479/2018 for the offence under Section 49-A of M.P. Excise Act was registered. Juvenile was produced before Juvenile Justice Board. Her mother filed an application for bail. Application was rejected then she filed revision against that order before Child Court, the same was also rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a minor boy aged about 17 years. The investigation is over and charge sheet in the matter has already been filed and no query is due but learned Court below has wrongly held that the purpose of justice will be defeated without mentioning what purpose will be defeated while passing the impugned judgment. Learned Court below has wrongly came to the conclusion while passing the impugned judgment and also ignored that the petitioner is a minor boy and is studying; therefore, his future would be spoiled due to non-consideration of the bail.
2 CRR-266-2019 Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Katni, District-Katni dismissed the appeal then he filed this revision before this Court.
Heard both the parties and perused the record.
According to the petitioner's mother, the order of the Principal Juvenile Magistrate and learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Katni are not proper and bad in law. Principal Juvenile Magistrate and learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Katni have not considered the law in its true perspective. The mother of the petitioner submitted that in view of the mandatory provision for bail u/s 12 of the Act, the petitioner-juvenile is entitled for bail. There was nothing on record to show that the release of petitioner was likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger so it is in the interest of justice to release the petitioner on bail.
It is found evident that regarding bail to a juvenile, it is relevant for u/s 12 which reads as under:-
"12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.
(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the persons release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order. (4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfill the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail."
3 CRR-266-2019 It is evident that in all the aforesaid provisions if a juvenile 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 their 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 ends of the justice. Thus, every juvenile have whatsoever offence he charged with shall be released on bail except under the above circumstances.
The probationary Report of Probation Officer of Principal Juvenile Magistrate has been received. It is mentioned in the report that there is no criminal record against the juvenile and his family members. So in this 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 ends of the justice. In this regard, Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the similar issues in the case of Ranjeet Singh V. State of H.P. reported in 2005 Cri.L.J. 972 & Rahul Rajendra V. State of M.P. reported in 2001(1) M.P.L.J. 172 . It is directed that petitioner juvenile shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) by his mother with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Juvenile Magistrate, Katni for his appearance before that Magistrate.
Hence, this petition is allowed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE MISHRA Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2019.02.06 18:10:10 +05'30'