IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.233 of 2018

=====================================

Niraj Kumar, son of Sanjay Paswan, Resident of Village-

Shivri Gopinathpur, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur.

Niraj Kumar minor who is in under Guardianship of his

father Sanjay Paswan, son of Ramvachan Paswan, Resident

of

Village-

S.

Gopinathpur,

P.S.-

Suraiya,

District-

Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s

=====================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shaishav Kumar, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Anand Mohan Pd. Mehta, APP

=====================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

3

22-03-2018

The age of the juvenile/petitioner was assessed

to be more than 16 but less than 18 years of age. He has

been made accused in Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 173 of

2017, dated 12.03.2017, which has been instituted for

the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.233 of 2018 (3) dt.22-03-2018

2/6

Since the juvenile/petitioner was held to be

more than 16 years of age, his case was transferred to

the Child Court, viz. the Court of learned 1^st Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur.

As far as the merit of the case is concerned,

four persons including the juvenile/petitioner are alleged

to have killed the father of the informant. Two of the

accused persons are alleged to have caught hold of the

deceased,

whereas

the

other

two,

including

the

juvenile/petitioner, assaulted him by means of knife,

leading to his death. The post-mortem report of the

deceased, however, revealed that there was only one

injury on the person of the deceased. Taking advantage

of the aforesaid single injury on the deceased, in the

background of two persons were alleged to have

assaulted him, the other co-accused who was also alleged

to have given a dagger blow on the deceased, was

granted bail by a Bench of this Court.

However, the prayer of the juvenile/petitioner

for being released from the remand home, where he has

been lodged since 26.08.2017, has been rejected by the

learned Child Court on consideration of the fact that he is

an accused of a heinous case as defined under Section

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.233 of 2018 (3) dt.22-03-2018

3/6

2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of

Children) Act, 2015 and the manner of occurrence

discloses that the juvenile/petitioner has behaved like an

adult in taking away the life of an individual.

Learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

juvenile/petitioner, however, has submitted that the order

is not fit to be sustained in the eyes of law because the

learned Child Court did not address himself to the issues,

viz. whether the juvenile/petitioner is required to be tried

as an adult or that he requires an individual care plan for

his rehabilitation, which would have included a follow-up

report by a Probation Officer or the District Child

Protection Unit or a social worker.

It has further been submitted that under the

Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Model

Rules, 2016, the Child Court was required to follow the

procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure

of trial by Sessions, but had to maintain a child friendly

atmosphere which invariably includes the individual care

plan of the child.

A Child Court has to address itself on various

issues, viz. that it would be expedient to try a juvenile as

an adult and that whether it would be for the benefit of

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.233 of 2018 (3) dt.22-03-2018

4/6

the child that he be sent to a place of safety, till attaining

the age of 21 years.

From the order impugned, it appears that the

learned Child Court, except for assessing the individual

act of the juvenile/petitioner in the crime and making

discussion