Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2019
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
( Cr.R.No.4135/2019)
(Manish Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior Bench:
Dated 04.10.2019
Shri Pradeep Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sushant Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent/State.
Shri Ajit Singh Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the complainant.
This criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short "Act of 2015") filed on behalf of petitioner- Manish (since minor) through his legal guardian (father) Bhurelal against the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Appeal No. 113/2019; whereby, appeal preferred by petitioner under Section 101(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been dismissed and order passed by Juvenile Justice Board dated 07.08.2019 rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act has been affirmed. By the order of the Juvenile Board dated 07.08.2019 in Criminal Case No. 145/2019, the application of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act for release of the petitioner on bail bond of his parents was rejected.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that case is of false implication. Petitioner is in confinement since 07.08.2019 on false pretext. He is only 14-15 years and prosecutrix was only 16-17 years and out of energy deriving through admonition, MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ( Cr.R.No.4135/2019) (Manish Vs. State of M.P.) they left together for Mumbai and lived there for 12-13 days and from the statements of prosecutrix under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., it appears that both were in emotional relationship. Report of Probation Officer indicates that if he is released on bail, then no adverse psychological, social or environmental impact would cast upon the applicant. Counsel for the applicant on behalf of his parents undertakes that he shall be involved in constructive, education related and community service, so that he can come in main stream to purge his misdeeds, if any. He undertakes to cooperate in trial and could not be a source of harassment or embarrassment to the complainant party in any manner.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for rejection of this criminal revision.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Looking to the fact situation of the case and the fact that petitioner is minor and his father is ready to take care of his child and would try to make his future bright and appreciating such undertaking and efforts to be pressed into service by the father of petitioner, without commenting on the merits of the case, this court inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, this revision is allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ( Cr.R.No.4135/2019) (Manish Vs. State of M.P.) the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board by father / legal guardian of the petitioner, custody of petitioner be handed over to him (father) with the clear stipulation to produce him before the Investigating Officer/trial Court as and when required.
However, the aforesaid grant of bail shall be subject to the condition that petitioner shall not move in the vicinity of prosecutrix and would not make any contact with her in future. Petitioner would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant in any manner and he will regularly attend the class X or XI as the case may be and his attendance should not be less than 75%. Petitioner is further directed to serve the Community Health Centre, Phoop, District Bhind on every Monday from 9 am to 1 pm for two months and his role would be to assist the doctors/compounder while serving outdoor patients. He would not be allowed to move inside the operation theater and private wards and shall not be a source of infection and discomfort to the patients and concerned duty doctors shall ensure this. In December, 2019 petitioner shall submit a report about the works done by him and suggestions, if any for improvement of the system.
This direction is given looking to the age of the petitioner so that he can get a chance to assimilate in the main stream.
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ( Cr.R.No.4135/2019) (Manish Vs. State of M.P.) CMHO/Hospital Superintendent, District Bhind shall permit the petitioner to work in the outdoor patient department only while assisting the ward boys and male nurses to serve the patients. The services of the petitioner shall also be utilized in maintaining cleanliness in the building and serving the patients and doing work like First Aid etc., so that petitioner may inculcate some basis knowledge of First Aid or Emergency Care of patients which may be helpful for unforeseen exigencies or natural calamities wherein petitioner may be helpful as a volunteer. It is made clear that petitioner shall not be a source of any infection to the patients and would confine himself in the work of cleanliness, registration of patients or those works which may not endanger the interest of any patient.
This direction is made by this Court as a test case to address the Anatomy of Violence and Evil by process of Creation and a step towards Alignment with Nature. The natural instinct of compassion, service, love and mercy needs to be rekindled for human existence as they are innately engrained attributes of human existence.
The Medical Superintendent of Community Health Centre, Phoop, District Bhind will observe the conduct of the MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ( Cr.R.No.4135/2019) (Manish Vs. State of M.P.) petitioner Manish and if any aberration and departure from any normal conduct is observed then he shall immediately report the same to District Judge, Bhind who will take care of the situation and in case the Superintendent of Community Health Centre finds any act of petitioner contrary to the interest of the patients then he shall immediately stop the visit of petitioner and would report to this Court about his conduct which may dis-entitle him from the benefit of bail granted by this Court.
Any breach of condition or any activity contrary to the interest of patients and public would render the petitioner dis- entitled from the relief granted by this Court.
CMHO, District Bhind be informed accordingly. Revision stands allowed and disposed of.
(Anand Pathak) Judge neetu NEETU SHASHANK 2019.10.04 04:13:58 -07'00'