Madhya Pradesh High Court
Adarsh Kumar Singh @ Jai Singh Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 January, 2022
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
1 CRR-3539-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRR No. 3539 of 2021
(ADARSH KUMAR SINGH @ JAI SINGH THROUGH PUSHPENDRA SINGH (FATHER) Vs THE STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 11-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Anchan Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Mr. Anoop Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the objector.
This is second criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act has been filed against the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Special Judge/IVth Additional Sessions Judge, District Satna (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.05/2021 affirming the rejection order dated 27.01.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Satna. The first Cr.R. No.1255/2021 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.09.2021.
Crime No. 19/2021 has been registered against the applicant in Police Station Nayagaon, District Satna (M.P.) for the offences under Sections 302, 120-B, 201/34 of the IPC and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 11/13 of M.P. Dacoity Aur Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981.
As per prosecution case, applicant is the son of main accused - Pushparaj Singh (wrongly mentioned as Pushpendra Singh in the cause- title) who committed murder of two persons namely Priya Singh Parihar and Anuj Kumar Dixit. There was some enmity between deceased persons and main accused - Pushparaj Singh. Allegation against the present applicant is that he informed his father whereabouts the deceased persons and thereafter, the main accused committed murder by means of gun and as a result of which both the deceased died due to gunshot injury.
2 CRR-3539-2021 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is in Juvenile Home since 21.01.2021. The key prosecution witnesses have been examined in the trial Court and most of the them have turned hostile and other witnesses did not mention any participation of the present applicant in the instant case. There is no adverse opinion given by the Probationary Officer regrading the conduct of the applicant. Thus, considering the aforesaid, he may be enlarged on bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and it is submitted that previously offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. has been registered against the present applicant, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposed the application. It is submitted that three witnesses are yet to be examined before the trial Court and if the applicant is released on bail, he will try to influence or pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the role attributed against the applicant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, application is allowed. It is directed that if guardian of applicant furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) before the Juvenile Justice Board, Satna alongwith one surety bond of the same amount that she would produce the juvenile applicant before the Juvenile Justice Board on each and every date of hearing then, the juvenile be given into the custody of his mother/guardian Smt. Hemlata Singh.
It is made clear that if the applicant is again involved in any kind of crime, then this order shall become ineffective immediately without reference to this Court. The juvenile shall further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-section 3 of Section 437 of Cr.P.C.
A copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below for 3 CRR-3539-2021 information and compliance.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE shahina Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2022.01.12 17:49:18 IST