SANCHIT SHARMA (MINOR) Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved from the order dated 09.10.2018 passed in Cr.A. No. 844/2018 by learned Special Sessions Judge, Bhopal, District-Bhopal affirming the order dated 27.09.2018 passed by learned Principal Juvenile Magistrate, Bhopal, District-Bhopal (M.P.). Learned Principal Juvenile Magistrate, Bhopal rejected the bail application of the petitioner.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 04.09.2018 at about 01:15 pm. when injured Atul Kujur along with his brother Udit were gone to Nehru Nagar Chouraha for see the Matakiphod Pratiyogita. At that time, present petitioner along with other co-accused Rohit and Akash came there and due to previous enmity, they abused filthy language to the complainant/injured. Thereafter, present petitioner and co-accused Akash caught the Atul/complainant and Rohit, assaulted to him with knife on his stomach. Therefore, on the report of the complainant, a case was registered against the present petitioner and other co-accused persons. They were produced before Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner's father filed an application for bail. Application was rejected then he filed appeal against that order before Special Sessions Judge, Bhopal and the same was also rejected.

(3.) According to the petitioner's father, the order of the Principal Juvenile Magistrate and learned Special Sessions Judge, Bhopal are not proper and bad in law. Principal Juvenile Magistrate and learned Special Sessions Judge, Bhopal have not considered the law in its true perspective. The father of the petitioner submitted that in view of the mandatory provision for bail u/s 12 of the Act, the petitioner-juvenile is entitled for bail. There was nothing on record to show that the release of petitioner was likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger so it is in the interest of justice to release the petitioner on bail.