In an appeal under the Juvenile Justice Act, The madhya Pradesh High Court granted bail to the appellant, stating that the absence of a male family member to supervise the applicant cannot serve as a sole reason for denying bail or suspension of sentence.
The Court was presided over by Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla who stated, “This Court finds prima-facie the case for grant of bail because the appellant is more than 21 years and he cannot be denied bail/suspension of sentence only on the ground that there is no male member in the family to have control over him.”
The Court directed that the appellant should be released on bail under strict supervision of the Probation Officer, Women and Child Development Department, Shajapur.
The juvenile was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC and is currently 21 years old and has been denied bail. The court clarified that the seriousness of the offence alone cannot justify the denial of bail to a child in conflict with the law (CICL).
“The discretion to deny the bail/suspension of sentence is only in exceptional cases where the safety or justice interest are involved. The report of Probation Officer shall be relevant consideration for considering an application for bail/suspension of sentence and the application shall not be rejected only on consideration of seriousness or manner of commission of offense in the case of a child who has attained the age of 21 years during the pendency of the trial/appeal.”
The court made observations about the application of juvenile justice provisions and in context to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the court stated, “The discretion to deny bail/suspension of sentence is only in exceptional cases where safety or justice interests are involved.”
Further while considering the appellant's circumstances, the court noted that the Probation Officer had not filed an adverse report against him on his conduct.
The appellant was located in a car with a dead person, but the evidence did not show that he was aware of the body's presence. The conviction was largely based on circumstantial evidence, and the court ruled that the appellant could not be remanded in continuing detention simply on these grounds.
