Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.
X7 - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 365 of 2020
Decided On : 11-11-2020
Manish Kumar, Advocate, Rita Verma, Advocate
Headnote:
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 12 – Refusal of prayer for bail – Case registered under Sections 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Petitioner is a juvenile in conflict with law – Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court rejected prayer for bail of petitioner taking into consideration seriousness of allegation and other grounds referred to in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of Act of 2015 – However, there was also no material before court below to believe that release of petitioner would bring him into association with any known criminals – There was also no material to come to conclusion that release of petitioner would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger – Court below has also not assigned any reason as to how in event of grant of bail ends of justice would be defeated – There could have been no application of grounds of Section 12 of Act of 2015 in case of petitioner – Nature of offence cannot be a ground for refusing bail to a child in conflict with law – Impugned judgments set aside and petitioner directed to be released on bail. (Paras 18 to 22)
The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Gaya, rejected the juvenile petitioner's bail application vide order dated 19.12.2019 in connection with Delha P.S. Case No.193 of 2019, despite discussing the social investigation report in that order.[8000498460007][8000498460013]
The social investigation report indicated that the deceased had a criminal background (involved in illegal liquor trade, dacoity, etc.) and poor relations with several persons, while the petitioner "appears to be innocent and has falsely been named in this case." The JJB nonetheless rejected bail primarily on grounds of the heinous nature of the allegations.[8000498460013]
The appellate court (Special Judge, Children Court, Gaya) upheld the JJB's rejection vide judgment dated 13.02.2020 in Cr. Appeal No.8 of 2020, without adequately addressing the social investigation report's findings or properly applying the grounds under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (e.g., no material shown for association with known criminals, exposure to moral/physical/psychological danger, or defeat of ends of justice).[8000498460003][8000498460008][8000498460013][8000498460017]
The High Court set aside both orders, noting the lower courts' failure to properly consider the social investigation report and irrelevance of offence gravity for bail of a child in conflict with law, directing release on bail.[8000498460017][8000498460019][8000498460020]
JUDGMENT
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. - Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State via video conferencing.
2. Though the petitioner has given full description in the application, it would be inappropriate to disclose his identity in view of the statutory provisions prescribed under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short the Act of 2015 ). He is being referred to in the cause title as X7.
3. Registry while uploading the order on the website shall also ensure that the cause title is reflected in similar manner.
4. This criminal revision application has been preferred under Section 102 of the Act of 2015 against the judgment dated 13.02.2020 passed in Cr. Appeal No.8 of 2020 by learned Special Judge (Children Court), Gaya whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.12.2019 passed in connection with Delha P.S. Case No.193 of 2019 registered under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya, refusing prayer for bail of the petitioner has been dismissed.
5. The petitioner is lodged in the Observation Home at Gaya.
6. The Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya, vide order dated 06.11.2019 determined the age of petitioner as 16 years 5 months and 21 days on the date of occurrence on the basis of the matriculation certificate issued by the CBSE Board and declared him a child in conflict with law on the date of occurrence.
7. The prosecution case, as per fardbeyan of Bittu Paswan recorded on 11.07.2019 at 10:30 am by Arun Kumar, SHO of Delha Police Station at emergency ward, Anugrah Narayan Magadh Medical College and Hospital, Gaya, is to the effect that on 10.07.2019 at 08:00 pm while he was going on his motorcycle along with his brother, namely Amar Paswan, five persons, namely, Manoj Yadav, Kaushal Yadav, Jahir Yadav @ Vikash Yadav @ Vikash Kumar, the appellant, Ritik Kumar and Lallu Paswan surrounded them. Thereafter, the accused Manoj Yadav ordered to kill his brother and fired, which hit Amar Paswan. In the meantime, other accused persons also opened fire. In order to save himself, he ran towards his house and came back along with other family members at the place of occurrence and found his brother Amar Paswan in an injured condition. The injured was taken to Magadh Medical College and Hospital, Gaya where he was declared dead.
8. The petitioner preferred his application for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya, but the same was dismissed by the Board vide order dated 19.12.2019.
9. The petitioner assailed the order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in appeal vide Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No.8 of 2020 before the learned Special Judge (Children Court), Gaya, who, vide impugned judgment dated 13.02.2020, upheld the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya and rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to previous enmity. He contended that in course of investigation, no legal evidence has been collected against the petitioner except that he was only a member of the mob. According to him, there is land dispute between the informant and co-accused Manoj Yadav. He further contended that on perusal of the first information report, it appears that co-accused Manoj Yadav fired upon the brother of the informant as a result of which he sustained injury and subsequently died. He has further contended that other coaccused person namely, Jahir Yadav @ Vikash Yadav @ Vikash Kumar has been granted bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.05.2020 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.35 of 2020.
11. He submitted that neither the Juvenile Justice Board nor the Speci
