Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 449
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Saurav Kumar @ Sahgal Pratap Singh @ Saurav Kumar Singh, S/o. Sushil Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar - Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No.791 of 2018 with Criminal Revision No.798 of 2018
Decided On : 07-10-2020
For the Petitioner: M/s. Arun Kumar, Shankar Kumar Choudhary.
For the Respondent: Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, A.P.P., Mr. Manish Kumar 2, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the detention of a juvenile in conflict with the law is subject to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, particularly regarding the categorization of offences, conditions for granting bail, and the maximum duration of detention.
Headnote:
Juvenile Justice Act - Bail - Sections 302, 120B/34, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, particularly Sections 15, 18, 19, and 21, and their applicability to the case. It also referenced key legal provisions such as the categorization of offences as heinous, serious, and petty, and the conditions for granting bail to a child in conflict with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, declared juvenile, sought bail in two cases. The lower courts rejected the bail applications, leading to the criminal revision petitions. The main issue was the detention of the petitioner, who had been in custody for over three years.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the nature of the offences, the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act, and the provisions related to bail. It found that the petitioner could be detained for more than three years in the case of a heinous offence, but not in the case of a serious offence. The court also considered the conditions for granting bail and the lack of evidence to justify the continued detention of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be detained for more than three years, and whether bail should be granted based on the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner could be detained for more than three years in the case of a heinous offence, but not in the case of a serious offence. It also emphasized that bail should be granted unless specific conditions were met, such as the risk of the petitioner associating with known criminals or being exposed to danger.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petitions and directed the release of the petitioner on bail in both cases.
JUDGMENT :
1. 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 16.01.2018 passed by learned Princ
