Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 414
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
X1 - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Revision No.343 of 2020
Decided On : 14-10-2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
The seriousness of the alleged offence cannot be the sole ground for rejecting bail under the Juvenile Justice Act. The court must consider the specific circumstances of the case and provide adequate reasoning for its decisions.
Headnote:
Juvenile Justice - Bail Application - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 102 - Sections 66-E, 67-A of the Information and Technology Act - Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a juvenile, sought bail after being accused of circulating an obscene video. The Juvenile Justice Board rejected the bail, and the appellate court upheld the decision. The petitioner appealed to the High Court, challenging the rejection of bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of bail by the Juvenile Justice Board was not justified as it did not provide sufficient reasons for the decision. The court also noted that other co-accused, facing serious allegations, had been granted bail.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court, despite the petitioner being a juvenile and the lack of sufficient justification for the rejection.
Ratio Decidendi: The seriousness of the alleged offence cannot be the sole ground for rejecting bail under the Juvenile Justice Act. The court must consider the specific circumstances of the case and provide adequate reasoning for its decisions.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court, directing the release of the petitioner on bail.
JUDGMENT :
Heard 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 X1.
3. Registry while uploading the order on the website shall also ensure that the cause title is reflected in similar manner.
4. This revision application under Section 102 of the Act of 2015 has been preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal No.10 of 2020 arising out of Paroo P.S. Case No.484 of 2019 registered under Sections 66-E, 67-A of the Information and Technology Act and Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) whereby the appeal challenging the order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur in Paroo P.S. Case No.484 of 2019 has been rejected.
5. By the aforesaid order dated 23.01.2020, the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur has rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner by passing a cryptic order that the release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice and would not be in the interest of the child.
6. The appellate court rejected the appeal on the ground that the allegation against the petitioner is that he circulated obscene video prepared by co-accused on WhatsApp group.
7. As per the first information report instituted on the basis of self-statement of one Sunil Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police posted at Kathaiya Police Station, he received information from his superior officials that an objectionable video in the name of one J.S. Rai was made viral. Under the order of superior officer, he deputed local chowkidar and spy to verify the information and inform the District Transport Officer, Muzaffarpur for verification of the motorcycle, which was seen in the viral video and proceeded to enquire into the matter along with the police party at 05:00 pm on 14.11.2019 and reached in Parohan village where the local chowkidar informed that there is no person in the name of J.S. Rai in Parohan village. He further stated that a middle aged person seen in the video is P.S. Rai but the girl seen in the video could not be traced. Thereafter, he informed the superior officer and the SHO, Jaintpur Police Station. The police party reached the village of the suspect P.S. Rai and found his house locked and the local people informed that he is out of station. Thereafter, the police could get clue of one accused A.K., who was arrested and, on interrogation, he disclosed that he had received the video from the petitioner in a group, which he has deleted after watching. Thereafter, he proceeded to the house of the petitioner along with the accused A.K. The petitioner tried to ran away, but he was caught by the police. He disclosed that the video was shown to him on his WhatsApp group by one A.K. Sah and the same video was sent by him to another group. Thereafter, accused A.K. Sah was apprehended, who disclosed that the video was prepared by one V.K. through his mobile near canal and after watching the video, he deleted the same. On this information, V.K. was caught by the police party and he disclosed that during Dashahara, on Saptami, his friend M.K. saw a motorcycle parked at an isolated place and when they stopped and watched nearby, they saw a middle aged person with a minor girl in objectionable condition in the bush and then they interrogated them and recorded video of the girl in objectionable position.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was declared a juvenile in conflict with law vide order dated 24.12.2019
