Sanjay Gurjar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Sanjay Gurjar vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 29, 2008

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/510421

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/510421
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: N.K. Mody, J.
Decided On: Jul 29, 2008
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055. Article 141; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Ful...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sanjay Gurjar

Advocate Shri. Ravi Varma

Respondent

State of Madhya Pradesh

Legal References

Reported In: 2009(2)MPHT174

Excerpt

.....india. it would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single judge. the pleadings also assume immense significance. it would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of articles 226 and 227 of the constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. in this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that article 226 of the constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. it will depend upon factual matrix of each case. dr. jaidev siddha v. jaiprakash siddha, 2007(2) mpjr (fb) 361: air 2007 mp 269 (fb) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of slp preferred against order reported in rama and company v. state of madhya pradesh [2007 (2) mpjr 229 (db) (mp)]. - the application as well as appeal was rejected by the learned court below against which this revision. it is submitted that this aspect of the case at all not taken into consideration while dismissing the application as well as appeal by the learned court below. advocate, learned counsel for the respondent supports the order and submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, after taken into consideration of the eventualities, learned courts below has rightly rejected the application as well as appeal filed by the petitioner......21-5-08 passed by principal judge, juvenile court, ratlam in criminal case no. 3765/06, whereby the learned trial court rejected the application for giving petitioner for supurdagi to his uncle, hence the present petition has been filed.2. short facts of the case are that petitioner sanjay s/o ramchandra is being prosecuted for having committed offence under sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 450, 307, 427, 325, 324 and 323 of ipc along with 15 other accused for an offence in which 4 persons were murdered and 5 persons were injured. since the petitioner was juvenile, therefore, the case of the petitioner was transferred to juvenile court. before the juvenile court an application was filed by jagadish, uncle of the petitioner with a prayer to give the custody of juvenile in supurdagi. the application as well as appeal was rejected by the learned court below against which this revision.3. shri ravi varma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that learned court below committed error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. learned counsel draws the attention of this court to section 12(1) of the juvenile justice act which reads as under:when any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the 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. the trial court has not where stated that on the release of the applicant it has likely to come into association with any know criminal or expose him to moral, physical or.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

N.K. Mody, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 5-6-08 passed by Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Criminal Appeal No. 122/08, whereby the learned Sessions Court dismissed the appeal filed under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which shall be reported as J.J. Act filed against the order dated 21-5-08 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Court, Ratlam in Criminal Case No. 3765/06, whereby the learned Trial Court rejected the application for giving petitioner for Supurdagi to his uncle, hence the present petition has been filed.

2. Short facts of the case are that petitioner Sanjay s/o Ramchandra is being prosecuted for having committed offence under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 450, 307, 427, 325, 324 and 323 of IPC along with 15 other accused for an offence in which 4 persons were murdered and 5 persons were injured. Since the petitioner was Juvenile, therefore, the case of the petitioner was transferred to Juvenile Court. Before the Juvenile Court an application was filed by Jagadish, uncle of the petitioner with a prayer to give the custody of Juvenile in Supurdagi. The application as well as appeal was rejected by the learned Court below against which this revision.

3. Shri Ravi Varma, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that learned Court below committed error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. Learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act which reads as under:

When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the 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. The Trial Court has not where stated that on the release of the applicant it has likely to come into association with any know criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

4. Learned Counsel submits that keeping in view the aforesaid provisions of the Juvenile Act the application could have been rejected only on the ground that the 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. It is submitted that this aspect of the case at all not taken into consideration while dismissing the application as well as appeal by the learned Court below.

5. Shri G.S. Chouhan, Govt. Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondent supports the order and submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, after taken into consideration of the eventualities, learned Courts below has rightly rejected the application as well as appeal filed by the petitioner.

6. From perusal of the record it appears that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case where 4 persons were murdered and 5 persons were injured. The total number of accused are 16 including the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show the financial status of the Jagadish, uncle of the petitioner. Similarly, there is nothing on record to show that in case the petitioner is given in the custody of Jagadish on Supurdaginama, then the life of petitioner will be in danger.

7. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order passed by the learned Courts below are not accordance with law. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case this petition is disposed of with a short direction that learned Court below shall decide the application afresh, after taking into consideration the financial status of the uncle of the petitioner. It is made clear that Jagadish will submit an affidavit, sworning herein that if the petitioner is given in Supurdaginama, the life of the petitioner will not be in danger. A report in this regard be also called from the P.S., Nahargarh Distt. Mandsaur. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2008 Same Parties Sanjay Gurjar vs State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Criminal Same Judge N.K. Mody, J.

Criminal