granting or rejecting bail to a delinquent juvenile is candidly clear.
While considering the bail application to juvenile provisions of Section
12 of the Act of 2000 should be seen and provisions of bail of the
Code of Criminal Procedure shall not govern juvenile's bail application.
Heinousness of offence is also has no relevance while considering the
bail matter of a delinquent juvenile.
10. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material, including
the report of the Probation Officer to show that the release of the
delinquent juvenile on bail is likely to bring him into the association
with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.
11. As per above discussion I am of the opinion that both the Courts
below erred in rejecting the petitioner's bail application. There is no
possibility that if petitioner is released on bail, his release shall bring
him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger or his release shall defeat the ends of
justice. Impugned order passed by the appellate Court and the orders
passed by the Juvenile Board are not sustainable in law and both the
Courts below committed jurisdictional error and illegality in passing
both the orders.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH:
HON. SHRI JUSTICE SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA
Criminal Revision No.70/2015
Rabi Khan alias Salman
V
State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation; 2015 CRLJ 3059
O R D E R
(30/1/2015 )
Per Justice Sushil Kumar Gupta :
1. Petitioner has preferred this revision under section 53 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short
“the Act of 2000”) against the impugned order dated 2.1.2015 passed
by Special Judge (Atrocities) and Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in
Criminal Appeal No.478/2014, whereby the rejection order of bail
application filed under section 12 of the Act of 2000 dated 15.12.2014
passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gwalior has been confirmed.
2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition in brief are that the
complainant has lodged a report on 5.10.2014 that she is living behind
Sahkari Bank and near her house Monu Khan, Rabi Khan and
Ramkesh Gurjar are also living. When the complainant was alone at
her house, Ramkesh Gurjar came to her house and offered some
money and in return ask her to allow him to sexual intercourse with her.
When the complainant was trying to send him away, co-accused Monu
Khan and applicant Rabi Khan, who are the neighbours also came
there and offered money for the same. When she refused then they
abused her and forcibly caught her and turn by turn committed sexual
intercourse with her. They also threatened her of her life. Fearing that
she did not disclose the matter to anyone, all the accused persons
committed sexual intercourse with her and used to beat her by
threatening her off and on. Report was lodged and Crime
No.68/2014 was registered at Police Station Behat, Gwalior under
sections 376 (G), 452, 323, 506/34 of IPC. The petitioner was
arrested.
3. Initially the accused/petitioner filed the bail application for grant
of his custody before the Juvenile Justice Board under section 12 of the
Act, 2000 which was rejected vide order dated 15.12.2014. Against the
order dated 15.12.2014 a Criminal Appeal No.478/2014 was preferred
by the petitioner which has been dismissed by the impugned
judgment dated 2.1.2015. Being aggrieved, this revision petition has
been preferred on the ground that the learned Juvenile Board and the
learned Appellate Court committed error in rejecting the prayer of the
petitioner/accused, therefore, order of the Board and Appellate Court
are liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
petitioner is young boy of 15 years old and if he resides in the judicial
custody for long period, he may become an offender and prays for
release of the petitioner. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused Ramkesh and
Monu Khan have been released on bail vide order dated 8.12.2014
passed in M.Cr.C.No.11149/2014 and M.Cr.C.No.11256/2014.
Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in
Udham @ Dinesh Vs. State of M.P., 2006 (II) MPWN SN 96 and Raj
Kumar Vs. State of M.P., 2008 (1) MPWN 94. Learned counsel also
submitted that the gravity of offence is not a ground for rejection of
bail/custody, therefore, prays to release the petitioner/accused on
supurdiginama.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposes the
submission and submits that there is clear allegation against the
petitioner. He also submits that the allegations against the petitioner is
a serious offence and if the petitioner is released, there is every
likelihood that he may be exposed to moral or psychological danger.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
Section 12 of the Act 2000 reads as under:
“12 - Bail of juvenile - (1) When any person accused of
a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a
juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is 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 1 [or
placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or
under the care of any fit institution or fit person] but he
shall not be so released if there appear 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 the ends of justice.
(2) When such person having been arrested is not
released on bail under sub- section (1) by the officer
incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause
him to be kept only in an observation home in the
prescribed manner until he can be brought before a
Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under
sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of
committing him to prison, make an order sending him to
an observation home or a place of safety for such
period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him
as may be specified in the order.”
7. The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 conveys the
intention of this legislature to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of
nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him
and can be defined only in the case where there 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 shall defeat the ends of justice.
In this context I have also scanned through and perused the orders
passed by the Courts below and FIR of the case.
8. In the matter of Manoj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2004 (2)
R.C.C. 995, Lal Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan (2006 (1) R.C.C. 167,
Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan (2006 (1) RCC 337, Udaibhan Singh
alias Bablu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2005 (4) Crimes 649 andCr.R.No.70/2015 (Rabi Khan alias Salman Vs. State of M.P.) 4
Rajkumar Vs. State of M.P. 2008 (1) MPWN Note 94, it has been held
by the different High Courts that if there are no allegations that release
of delinquent juvenile on bail shall bring him into association with any
known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological
danger or that his release shall defeat the ends of justice, he deserves
to be released on bail and merits or nature of the offence has no
relevance while considering the bail application of delinquent juvenile.
9. On going through the aforesaid citations the legal position of
granting or rejecting bail to a delinquent juvenile is candidly clear.
While considering the bail application to juvenile provisions of Section
12 of the Act of 2000 should be seen and provisions of bail of the
Code of Criminal Procedure shall not govern juvenile's bail application.
Heinousness of offence is also has no relevance while considering the
bail matter of a delinquent juvenile.
10. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material, including
the report of the Probation Officer to show that the release of the
delinquent juvenile on bail is likely to bring him into the association
with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.
11. As per above discussion I am of the opinion that both the Courts
below erred in rejecting the petitioner's bail application. There is no
possibility that if petitioner is released on bail, his release shall bring
him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger or his release shall defeat the ends of
justice. Impugned order passed by the appellate Court and the orders
passed by the Juvenile Board are not sustainable in law and both the
Courts below committed jurisdictional error and illegality in passing
both the orders.
12. Consequently, revision petition is allowed and impugned order
dated 2.1.2015 passed by Appellate Court and the order dated
15.12.2014 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in Crime No.68/2014 are
hereby set aside and it is directed that petitioner be released on bail
on executing a personal bond by his natural guardian in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two solvent sureties
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice
Board with the stipulation that on all the subsequent dates of hearing,
he shall produce the delinquent juvenile before the said Board or any
other Court during pendency of the inquiry and he shall keep proper
look-after of the juvenile delinquent and keep him away from the
company of known criminals.
13. With the aforesaid, revision petition stands disposed of.
(Sushil Kumar Gupta)
Judge
30/1/2015
No comments:
Post a Comment