Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRR/5928/2018 of SACHIN BHERUA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2018
Court Of Madhya PradeshThe High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CRR-5928-2018 (SACHIN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
The High Court Of Madhya PradeshCRR-5928-2018
(SACHIN BHERUAVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
5
Gwalior, Dated :[31][-][12][-][2018]
Shri R.K. Upadhyay, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pramod Pachauri, Public Prosecutor for therespondent/State.
This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against theorder dated 27/11/2018 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwaliorin Criminal Appeal No.444/2018 thereby affirming the order dated30/10/2018 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile JusticeBoard, Gwalior in Case No.295/2016 thereby rejecting the bailapplication filed by the applicant.
The applicant who is aged about 17 years and 5 months (as ontoday) has been arrested on 27/8/2018 in connection with CrimeNo.245/2018 registered at Police Station Gole ka Mandir, DistrictGwalior for offence under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision inshort are that the complainant lodged a report that he had gone toattend a marriage in Morena. When he came back, he heard somenoises coming out of his house. The complainant somehow managedto get inside the house and found that an amount of Rs.3,500/- wasmissing. The applicant has been arrested on 27/8/2018 and an amountof Rs.400/- has been seized from his possession.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that although theapplicant has been made an accused in five other criminal cases but allthose cases were lodged against the unidentified persons and in none of these cases, the applicant has been put for test identification paradeand in fact the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is furthersubmitted that mere recovery of an amount of Rs.400/- cannot be saidto be an incriminating evidence as the currency notes cannot beidentified. It is further submitted that the father of the applicant isready and willing to take the custody of the applicant and he insuresthat he will look after him and will keep him away from criminalactivities.
Per contra, the revision is opposed by the State counsel. It issubmitted by the State counsel that as many as five criminal caseshave been registered against the applicant which clearly shows that hehas not improved himself. However, the counsel for the State was notin a position to submit that whether the applicant was implicated inall those five cases on the date of his arrest in the present case orwhether earlier also he was arrested for the said offences.
Considering the welfare of the child in custody and in absence of any rebuttal to the submission made by the counsel for theapplicant that the applicant has been arrested on 27/8/2018 and on thesame day, he was made an accused in five other cases, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that the revision filed by the applicant deservesto be allowed.
Accordingly, on furnishing a bail bond in the sum ofRs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) by the father of theapplicant with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of theJuvenile Justice Board, the Juvenile Justice Board is directed tohandover the custody of the applicant to his father.
The revision succeeds and is hereby allowed.
AKS
Certified copy as per rules.
ALOK KUMAR 2018.12.31 17:35:51 +05'30'
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)V. JUDGE