Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.
Saurav Kumar @ Sahgal Pratap Singh @ Saurav Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 791 of 2018, 798 of 2018
Decided On : 07-10-2020
Arun Kumar, Advocate, Shankar Kumar Choudhary, Advocate, Akhileshwar Dayal, Advocate, Ravindra Kumar, Advocate, Manish Kumar, Advocate
Headnote:
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 12, 15(3) and 21 – Bail to juvenile in conflict with law – A child in conflict with law is entitled to get privilege of bail unless there appears to be reasonable grounds for believing that release is likely to bring that child into association with any known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger or child's release would defeat ends of justice – Petitioner has been made accused in two cases out of which one case is for heinous offence and other case is for serious offence – Even if a child in conflict with law who has completed or is above age of 16 years, is sentenced for life imprisonment then also, Government has power to suspend, remit or commutate his sentence – It cannot be said that a child in conflict with law, who has completed or is above age of 16 years on the date of occurrence, cannot be sentenced for more than three years even if he has committed a heinous offence – Section 12 of Act 2015 does not make any difference between heinous offences, serious offences and petty offences and in all categories of offences a child in conflict with law is entitled to bail unless proviso is attracted against him – Petitioner has been detained since last three and half years and there is nothing on record to show that release of petitioner would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger – Petitioner happens to be student and if he is further detained, his entire career would suffer – Impugned orders passed by respective courts set aside and petitioner directed to be released on bail. (Paras 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25 and 26)
JUDGMENT
Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. - Both the above stated petitions were heard together as petitioner was made accused in Bakhri P.S. Case No. 98 of 2017 registered under Sections 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act as well as in Bakhari P.S. Case No. 61 of 2017 registered under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. In both the above stated cases petitioner was declared juvenile and enquiry under Section 15(3) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as Act 2015 ) was conducted and he was found mentally fit to understand the nature of offences which are allegedly have been committed by the petitioner and accordingly, both the above stated cases were sent to Children s Family Court, Begusarai for trial in accordance with law.
2. Petitioner prayed for bail in both the above stated cases. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist cum Special Judge, Begusarai vide order dated 27.04.2018 passed in J.J.C.P. Case No. 1 of 2018 arising out of Bakhari P.S. Case No. 61 of 2017 rejected the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner and similarly, vide order dated 11.04.2018 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2018, learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai affirmed the order dated 08.01.2018 passed by Principal Member, Juvenile Justice Board, Begusarai in connection with Juvenile Justice Board Case No. 87 of 2017 arising out of Bakhri P.S. Case No. 98 of 2017 by which learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Begusarai had rejected the bail prayer of the petitioner.
3. Since in both the above stated criminal revision petitions, similar question of law is involved and, therefore, both the above stated criminal revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order on the stage of admission stage itself with consent of all the parties.
4. In Bakhri P.S. Case No. 98 of 2017 petitioner and seven FIR named and three unknown persons were made accused and it is alleged in the ferdbeyan of Bakhri P.S. Case No. 98 of 2017 that petitioner opened fire which hit on the head of the deceased whereas other named accused opened fire causing firearm injury on different parts of body of the deceased.
5. In Bakhari P.S. Case No. 61 of 2017, petitioner and some others were made accused and informant of the aforesaid case claimed in his ferdbeyan that petitioner shot fire causing firearm injury on his chest.
6. Petitioner surrendered before the court of learned Magistrate on 17.05.2017 in Bakhri P.S. Case No. 61 of 2017 and subsequently, he was remanded in Bakhri P.S. Case No. 98 of 2017. Petitioner claimed himself juvenile and accordingly, his cases were sent to Juvenile Justice Board, Begusarai for enquiry. The learned Juvenile Justice Board having conducted enquiry regarding the juvenility of the petitioner found the petitioner aged about 16 years 10 months 17 days and accordingly, declared him juvenile. However, learned Juvenile Justice Board conducted an enquiry under Section 15 of Act 2015 and vide order dated 7.5.2018 found him mentally and physically competent to understand the nature of offences which are said to have been committed by the petitioner. However, before completion of enquiry under Section 15 of Act 2015, petitioner filed bail petition in Bakhri P.S. Case No. 98 of 2017 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Begusarai which was rejected by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Begusarai vide order dated 08.01.2018 against which the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2018 which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai vide order dated 11.04.2018. Similarly, petitioner filed bail petition in Bakhri P.S. Case No. 61 of 2017 vide J.J.C.P. Case No. 1 of 2018 for grant of bail but the same was dismissed. It is pertinent to note here that in above stated J.J.C.P. Case No. 1 of 2018, petitioner was declared juvenile as well as found mentally and physically fit by the order dated 16.01
