BABLU KUMAR MANDAL @ BABLU MANDAL vs STATE OF BIHAR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Pat) 820

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
BABLU KUMAR MANDAL @ BABLU MANDAL - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF BIHAR - Respondent
Criminal Revision No.6 of 2020
Decided On : 06-09-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Ravindra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr.Uday Pratap Singh, APP, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate

Headnote:
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 8(3)(e) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 366 and 302/34 – Bail application – Juvenile Justice Board has some functions and responsibilities towards children who are either in conflict with law or in need of care and protection – Board cannot simply be allowed to take a plea that they did not consider bail petition because it was not pressed – It was expected from Board that such bail petition should have been taken up by fixing a date and if no lawyer was appearing on behalf of petitioner, appropriate notice should have been issued to parent/guardian of petitioner whereupon he/they could have taken steps to get bail petition pressed – It was open for Board to consider such bail petition by appointing a lawyer through District level Legal Services Authority – In terms of Section 8(3)(e) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Board was obliged to call for social investigation report – Petitioner is admittedly a juvenile on alleged date of occurrence – Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent, he is a student of intermediate class and his father who has otherwise no criminal antecedent as informed to this Court, is ready to furnish undertaking that if released on bail, petitioner shall be associated with the study and shall not be allowed to come in contact with any bad element – Reunion of petitioner with his family would be in his best interest – Bail granted – Probation Officer shall keep on visiting place of petitioner and shall submit periodical report to Juvenile Justice Board as regards conduct of petitioner. (Paras 14 to 17)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the following key points are relevant:

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 8(3)(e), imposes an obligation on the Juvenile Justice Board to call for a social investigation report when dealing with cases involving juveniles in conflict with the law. The Board must undertake this investigation and submit a report within a specified period, typically 15 days from the juvenile's first appearance (!) .
The Board's responsibilities include ensuring that bail petitions filed by juveniles are properly considered. It is expected that such petitions should be fixed for hearing, and if the juvenile's lawyer is unavailable, appropriate notices should be issued to the guardian or parent to facilitate pressing the bail application (!) .
The failure of the Juvenile Justice Board to consider the bail petition or to call for a social investigation report, despite the petition being filed, constitutes a lapse in their duties. The Board cannot simply dismiss bail requests on the grounds that they were not pressed; instead, they should have taken active steps to process the petition (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes the importance of safeguarding the interests of juveniles, including their right to bail and proper judicial consideration. It also underscores that the role of the Juvenile Justice Board is akin to that of a parent, with a duty to act in the best interest of the juvenile, including ensuring their social and educational well-being (!) (!) .
In cases where the juvenile has no prior criminal record, is a student, and there is a willingness from the guardian to ensure the juvenile's proper conduct and study, bail can be granted with appropriate conditions. These conditions may include furnishing a bail bond and sureties, as well as undertaking that the juvenile will not contact negative influences (!) .
The court also notes that other co-accused who are similarly situated have been granted bail, which supports the decision to release the juvenile, considering the principles of fairness and the juvenile's best interests (!) .
The court cautions the Juvenile Justice Board to be vigilant in future cases, ensuring that all procedural requirements, including social investigations, are properly followed, to uphold the rights of juveniles and maintain the integrity of the juvenile justice process (!) (!) .
The court's decision to grant bail is contingent upon the juvenile's release being conditioned on the furnishing of a bond, surety, and the undertaking by the guardian regarding the juvenile's conduct and association (!) .

These points collectively reflect the court's approach towards balancing the juvenile's rights, procedural safeguards, and the responsibilities of the Juvenile Justice Board.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Petitioner in the present case is seeking setting aside of the order dated 26.11.2019 passed in T.R.No. 02/2019 by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Madhubani (G.R.No. 845/2019/EN 913 of 2019) in connection with Khajauli P.S. Case No. 75/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He is in the observation in connection with this case since 01.06.2019.

3. As per the prosecution story, the daughter of the informant had gone to ease out, she was about 17 years old. After leaving her house at 7.30 pm on 20.05.2019 she did not return home. The informant claims to have made telephone call on her mobile number whereupon the daughter of the informant told him that she is at the canal (Nahar) and "they will kill her" and thereafter she disconnected the phone. The informant claims that for the whole night he remained in search of his daughter but she could not be found. On 21.05.2019, he reached to his village and in the morning at 6.00 am he got information from the co-villagers that dead body of his daughter is hanging from a tree near the Pokhar of one Anil Singh. The informant went there with the co-villagers and found the dead body of his daughter was hanging from a rope with the help of a tree. He raised suspicion against unknown persons and on that basis the FIR has been registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in course of investigation co-accused Sanjay Yadav was arrested and in his confessional statement the name of the petitioner and other co-accused transpired. The petitioner has been adjudged juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in course of investigation it was found that the victim girl was regularly talking to the co-accused Nand Kishore Yadav and several phone calls were made by her to Nand Kishore Yadav on the date of the occurrence also.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been brought in this case on the basis of the CDR analysis of the phone calls of Nand Kishore Yadav from which it has been found that the petitioner had talked to the main accused Nand Kishore Yadav soon after the occurrence.

7. Learned APP, however, submits that the I.O. has not taken the tower location of the mobile of the petitioner and the victim girl and no comparison has been made to find out as to whether the mobile location of the petitioner was the same as that of the mobile location of the victim girl.

8. Learned counsel submits that the prayer for bail of the petitioner remained pending for a long time before the Juvenile Justice Board, Madhubani and no social investigation report was called for during this period. The petitioner has remained in remand home since his apprehension, though he was released for some time during Covid-19 situation. Presently the petitioner is in the remand home.

9. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused Nand Kishore Yadav who is said to be the main accused has been granted bail by a learned coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.Misc.No. 25085/2021, Sanjay Yadav has been granted bail in Cr.Misc.No. 29233/2020 and co-accused Santosh Yadav has been granted bail in Cr.Misc. No. 18773/2020.

10. It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner who has got no criminal antecedent is ready to furnish an undertaking that if released on bail the petitioner shall not be allowed to come in contact with any bad element and if he comes in such contact he will personally report it to the nearest police station. Petitioner is said to be a student of intermediate class and on release from the remand home he will pursue his studies.

11. On the other hand, Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. In course of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document