w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Aaraf Khan & Another v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam


Company & Directors' Information:- V. K. INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH2004PLC149538

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29300PB1996PLC017836

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74990TN2010PLC078041

Company & Directors' Information:- B P INDUSTRIAL CORPN. PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15312UP1973PTC087037

Company & Directors' Information:- A V A INDUSTRIAL CORPN PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29191TZ1956PTC000261

Company & Directors' Information:- RATLAM INDUSTRIAL LTD [Active] CIN = L67120WB1980PLC033222

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15420MH1921PTC000947

Company & Directors' Information:- D D INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34102DL2006PTC156978

Company & Directors' Information:- A K INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29130PN2014PTC151053

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00804KA1948PLC000529

    Criminal Revision No. 1859 of 2020

    Decided On, 18 September 2020

    At, High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR AWASTHI

    For the Applicant: Prakash Chandra Shrivas, Learned Counsel. For the Respondent: Shashank Sharma, Learned Panel Lawyer.



Judgment Text

1. The applicant has preferred this revision application under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (herein after referred to as the Act, for brevity) read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against order dated 8th May, 2020 (Annexure A/1) passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, District Ratlam (MP) in Criminal Appeal No.69/2020, whereby order dated 29.04.2020 (Annexure A/2) passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ratlam in Criminal Case No.223/2019 has been affirmed by which a repeat application filed by the applicant under Section 12 of the Act for grant of bail was rejected.2. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is aged about fifteen years; and he is a juvenile. The applicant was arrested on 25.09.2019 in the present crime; and he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Ratlam, who send him to Remand Home. The applicant moved an application under Section 12 of the Act for grant of bail, which has been dismissed vide order dated 6th November, 2019 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ratlam (MP). Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.168/2019 before the Sessions Court, which was also dismissed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam vide order dated 15th November, 2019. These two orders were challenged by the applicant before this Court by filing Criminal Revision No.5835/2019; and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 5th February, 2020. Thereafter, the applicant filed another application for grant of bail under Section 12 of the Act and the same was rejected by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ratlam on 29th April, 2020 in Criminal Case No.223/2019. The said order was challenged by the applicant before the Sessions Court i.e. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam (MP) by filing Criminal Appeal No.69/2020; and this appeal was dismissed on 8th May, 2020. Now, the aforesaid order (s) is subject matter of challenge before this Court in the present revision application.3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submit ted that the applicant is a minor boy aged 16 years of age and he is a student of Class X. It is further submitted that the applicant is in custody since 25.09.2019 and he has already completed more than eleven months in Remand Home and there is no possibility of early conclusion of the trial pending against him. It is also submitted that although charges have been framed against the applicant; and the case is posted for recording statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. However, even after service of summons, the witnesses are not appearing be fore the Juvenile Justice Board; and due to COVIC19 Pandemic, proceedings are held up before the Court be low.4. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to judgment of this Court in the case of Ramnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh & another reported in 2006 (1) MPHT 12 in which it has been held that Section 14 of the Act provides that an inquiry under this Section shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of its commencement, unless the period is extended by the Board having regard to the circum stances of the case and in special case after recording the reasons in writing for such extension. The provision is rigorous. It requires prompt action. The decision by the Board cannot be in a routine manner. It cannot be at leisure or pleasure. It is also submitted that in case of a juvenile, bail is a rule and jail is an exception. But, the Courts below failed to consider this legal aspect; and committed error in rejecting the prayer made by the applicant for grant of bail.5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh has con tended that the prosecutrix is a minor girl aged about fourteen years and five months. The applicant and his friend blackmailed her and they were making demand of cash amount and jewelry from the prosecutrix, otherwise, they will viral her naked photograph, which they obtained from instragram a social website. Therefore, earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ratlam as well as the Sessions Court, Ratlam; which has also been affirmed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.5835/2019; and thereafter, there is no change of circumstances in which the present revision application for grant of bail can be considered. Hence, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh prays for rejection of the present criminal revision for grant of bail.6. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the documents available on record.7. No doubt, the Act is a beneficial legislation intended for reform of the juvenile / child in conflict with the law, but the law also demands that justice should be done not only to the accused, but also to the accuser.8. In the present case, there is specific allegation against the applicant, that he along with his friend came to the house of the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her. They also threatened her, that if she does not follow their instructions, then they will viral her naked photo graphs; and they extorted money and jewelry from the prosecutrix and also pressurized her to continue physical relationship with them. The prosecutrix was called in Aasharwaad Hotel where some other accused persons were also present outside the room; and they were watching / guarding. Looking to this conduct of the applicant, this Court was of the view that he is capable to understand the act done by him and he is also in association with criminals, thus, his release is likely to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger; and therefore, his release would defeat the ends of justice.9. Although the charge sheet has been filed against the applicant, however, statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses have not been recorded. From perusal of the present status report called from the Juvenile Justice Board, it appears that there were so many interlocutory applications filed on behalf of the applicant and other juvenile; and they have been decided by the Juvenile Justice Board. Thereafter, charges have been framed and the case was posted for recording prosecution evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Juvenile Justice Board is not taking interest to decide the matter within a period prescribed in Section 14 of the Act. In the case of Ramnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh & another (supra), this Court has also ob served that if

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the inquiry is not conducted during the period of four months, the proceedings would not be liable to be quashed, or juvenile would be entitled to grant of bail. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, that the trial has not been concluded within four months from the date of filing of the charge sheet, hence, the applicant is entitled for enlargement on bail, appears to be not acceptable. Under these circum stances, this Court is of the view that there is no ground available in favour of the applicant for grant of bail; and the Courts below have not committed any error in rejecting the bail application of the applicant.10. Consequently, Criminal Revision No.1859/2020 has no merits; and is hereby dismissed.
O R