IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.143 of 2018

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

Dhirendra Kumar @ Pankaj Kumar, S/o Kamlesh Singh,

R/v- Sirbit, P.S.- Chainpur, Distt.- Kaimur, under the

Guardianship of his natural grandfather, namely, Rajendra

Singh, S/o Late Ram Swaroop Singh, R/v- Sirbit, P.S.-

Chainpur, Distt.- Kaimur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, Adv.

For the State :Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, APP

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

7

16-08-2018

The petitioner, a juvenile, has been made

accused in connection Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 440 of 2017,

dated 21.07.2017, instituted for the offences under

Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of

the Arms Act.

The Juvenile Justice Board, Kaimur at Bhabhua

(in short the Board) has assessed the age of the petitioner

to be more than 16 years, but less than 18 years of age on

the date of the occurrence. The Board, thereafter,

transferred the case of the petitioner to the Child Court

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.143 of 2018 (7) dt.16-08-2018

2/6

and refused to release him from the remand home on the

ground that he is an accused in a case of murder, which is

a heinous offence as defined under Section 2(33) of the

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015

(in short the Act) and he is aged more than 16 years.

The learned Child Court vide order dated

15.11.2017 has refused to direct for the release of the

petitioner from the remand home/place of safety on the

ground that the case of the juvenile/petitioner is being

dealt with in terms of Section 18(3) of the Act.

Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, learned Advocate

appearing for the juvenile/petitioner has argued that under

the provisions of Section 14(3) read with Section 15 of the

Act, the case of the petitioner was transmitted to the Child

Court because of the nature of the offence and his age.

However, the Child Court misconstrued the provision of

law in holding that a juvenile in conflict with law cannot be

directed to be released from the remand home/place of

safety if his/her case is being considered under Section

18(3) of the Act.

Section 18(3) of the Act enjoins that if the

Board, after preliminary assessment of a juvenile under

Section 15 of the Act, passes an order that there is a need

for trial of the child as an adult, it may transfer the trial of

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.143 of 2018 (7) dt.16-08-2018

3/6

the case of the concerned juvenile to the Child Court

having jurisdiction to try such offence. No where does

Section 18(3) of the Act prevent or prohibit any Child

Court from passing any order of release.

Mr. Sahay, learned Advocate, has further drawn

the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 19

of the Act which lists the options to the Child Court in

dealing with a juvenile who is more than 16 years and less

than 18 years of age at the time of commission of the

crime, which is a heinous offence. If the Child Court is of

the view that there is a need for trial of a child as an adult,

as per the provisions of Cr.P.C., necessary/appropriate

orders could be passed after trial in terms of Sections 19

and 21 of the Act, taking into account the special needs of

the Child, the tenets of fair trial and maintaining a child at

friendly atmosphere. If the Child Court is of the opinion

that there is no need for trial of the child as an adult, the

enquiry may be conducted as if it is being conducted by

the Board and necessary/appropriate orders could be

passed.

Thus, from the composite reading of Sections

14, 15, 18 and 19 of the Act, there does not appear to be

any proscription for not releasing a juvenile in conflict with

law from the R