RITESH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On behalf of the applicant, this revision is directed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, in short "the Act" being aggrieved by the order dated 17-6-2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Appeal No. 148/11 dismissing his appeal by affirming the order dated 26-5-2011 passed by the Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Court, Sagar in Criminal Case No. 116/11 dismissing his application for grant of bail as the applicant was taken in custody on dated 26-5-2011 in connection of Crime No. 354/11 registered against him at Police Station Motinagar, Sagar for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. The charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, as submitted by the applicant's Counsel. Certified copy of the same is also placed on the record.

(2.) Applicant's Counsel by referring the papers placed on record and also the report of the Probationary Officer contending that it is necessary for the applicant to reside in his family and if he is released on bail, then he may prosecute his study properly and his academic career of the current year would not be destroyed and he will complete his study equal to the other students, said that firstly on taking into consideration the face value of the charge-sheet no offences are made out against the applicant, or in any case the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out. In continuation he also said that in view of aforesaid report of Probationary Officer in order to save future welfare and the career of the applicant he should be released on bail under the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the Act," By referring such Section, he said that in the luck of any specific evidence or circumstance showing that releasing the applicant on bail shall affect his future welfare and the career the bail could not be refused. On the contrary in view of the aforesaid report of the Probationary Officer the applicant is entitled for extending the benefit of the mandatory provisions of this Section and prayed to allow this revision.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer with the assistance of the case diary has seriously opposed the prayer of the applicant's Counsel saying that Jooking to the nature of evidence, the applicant does not deserve for grant of bail and if he is released on bail, then certainly he will be involved again in the criminal activities, by which his future career may be destroyed and prayed for dismissal of the revision.