NARAYAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a juvenile below 18 years of age on the date of offence can be denied bail merely on subjective presumption that his 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 only because he is involved in a heinous crime, is the only short question that craves for an answer in the present revision petition preferred by the revisionist aggrieved by the concurrent orders of the two Courts below denying him bail under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care & Protection of Children ) Act, 2000 ( for brevity, the "Act").

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the above question are that a criminal case under section 302 IPC was registered against the revisionist and his other family members vide Crime No.30/09 at Police Station Andori, District Bhind with regard to murder of one Makhan Lal Jatav, an MLA from Gohad constituency in the incident that took place on 14 th April, 2009. The age of the revisionist that he was below 18 years of age on the date of crime is not in issue as it is admitted by the learned public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and is also so borne out from the impugned orders of the Courts below. Furthermore, a perusal of the impugned orders of the Courts below would show that the revisionist was denied bail as the Courts below formulated an opinion only on the basis of gravity of the crime that his release on bail was likely to bring him into association with known criminals.

(3.) The learned public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the present revision petition on the ground that the Courts below were justified in drawing a presumption against the revisionist that he may be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger as there is a possibility of his coming in association with known criminals in view of gravity of the crime in which he is involved. According to the learned public prosecutor, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the opinion formulated by the Courts below for denying bail to him under section 12 of the Act.