Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vidhi Ka Ullanghan Karne Wala Apchari ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2021
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
CRR-1254-2021
(VIDHI KA ULLANGHAN KARNE WALA APCHARI BALAK)
VERSUS
( THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER)
Gwalior, Dated:13/05/2021
Shri Rajiv Budholiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Devendra Choubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the
State.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard through
video conferencing.
This Criminal Revision under Section 102 of Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "the
Act, 2015") has been filed against the order dated 25/03/2021
passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in
Criminal Appeal No.43/2021, thereby affirming the order dated
25/02/2021passed by the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 in Crime No.875/2020.
According to the prosecution case, a dead body of an unknown person was found on 12/12/2020 and accordingly, on the information given by the complainant- Nawab Singh, Marg No.75/2020 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered. The dead body was sent for postmortem. Attempts were made to get the dead body identified and accordingly, on 13/12/2020 the relatives of the deceased identified the dead body to be of one Girraj S/o Jhiguriya Kushwah, R/o Jhod Ka Pura. As the material which was collected by the police was indicative of the fact that the deceased 2 suffered homicide, therefore, Crime No.875/2020 for offence under Section 302 of IPC was registered. During the course of investigation, statement of one Ajit, aged about 14 years was recorded, who stated that he is studying in Class 9th and is residing in a rented room in the house of Matadin Kushwah as he is taking coaching also. In the same house , his friend Dilip is also residing. On 9/12/2020, this witness went to the room of Dilip where he found that Dilip, Monu, Romi and Brahmjeet had tied the hands of Girraj Kushwah and were searching his body. One SIM was lying on the floor, which was picked up by this witness and he inserted that SIM in his mobile. When this witness enquired from the above-mentioned persons the reason for having tied the hands of Girraj Kushwah, the co-accused Monu Kushwah informed that he is his maternal uncle. Since Girraj was also laughing, therefore, this witness gathered an impression that they must be playing with each other. Thereafter, all these persons went away on motorcycles. This witness had also used the SIM, which he had found in the room of Dilip, to make calls to different persons. On 12/12/2020, Dilip Kushwah informed that his maternal uncle has been killed and, therefore, this witness got an impression that Girraj must be the culprit.
It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that except the above-mentioned evidence, there is no other evidence against the applicant. Further, while considering the bail application under Section 12 of the Act, 2015, the Court is not required to consider 3 the gravity of offence and is only required to find out as to whether 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 physiological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice or not. It is submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, still then there is no incriminating material against the applicant. The custody of the applicant would not be in the interest of the applicant.
Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that co- accused Romi Kushwah has been extended the benefit of bail by this Court vide order dated 17.03.2021 in Criminal Revision No.518/2021.
Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that according to the statement of Ramnaresh, since the deceased was on talking terms with one girl Punam, the applicant as well as the co-accused persons had requested this witness to convince the deceased to stay away from the girl Punam. After sometime, Punam got engaged and the fiance of Punam had also requested the deceased not to talk to Punam. Thus, there is a sufficient material to show that there is a motive behind the murder of the deceased.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Section 12 of the Act, 2015 reads as under:-
"12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict 4 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 (2 of 1974) 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 person's 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 sub-section (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 fulfil 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."
Thus, for considering the bail application of a juvenile, the Court is required to see as to whether there appears reasonable 5 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 physiological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice or not. Even if the merits of the case is considered, then it is clear that there is no sufficient material to come to a conclusion that the grant of bail to the applicant would not be in the interest of justice. No incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the applicant.
In view of above and considering the fact that co-accused Romi Kushwah has since been extended the benefit of bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.03.2021 in Criminal Revision No.518/2021 and therefore there is no reason take a different view in present case since the facts and circumstances attending the case of applicant and said case appears to be similar and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that considering the provision of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 as well as considering the allegations made against the applicant, the revision filed by the applicant deserves to be and is accordingly, allowed.
The order dated 25/03/2021 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.43/2021 and the order dated 25/02/2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 in Crime No.875/2020 are hereby set aside. On furnishing the bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only ) to the satisfaction of the 6 Juvenile Justice Board, Morena by the father of the applicant, the applicant shall be released on bail and be handed over to the custody of his father. The father of the applicant shall also furnish an undertaking that he would take proper care of the applicant and would ensure that he does not come in association with any criminal and would protect the applicant from moral, physical or physiological danger. He shall also furnish an undertaking before the Juvenile Justice Board that he would keep the applicant present before the Juvenile Justice Board/Trial Court as and when required.
(Sheel Nagu) V. Judge vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2021.05.14 13:40:53 +05'30' VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00'