Bajrangi Kumar @ Puchhiya @ Pochhi v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
The petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 120(B), 302
- Arms Act, 1959 s. 27
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 s. 12
Key paragraphs
- Para 0606. Accordingly, the impugned order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2023 dated 19.10.2023 by the Addl. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.60 of 2024(3) dt.05-03-2024 District and Sessions Judge 1st -cum- Special Judge, Children Court, Patna is quashed and set aside.
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI Mr.Niraj Kumar, Advocate Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP : : 3 05-03-2024 The instant Revision is directed against an order dated ORAL ORDER
19.10.2023 passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge- 1st-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Patna in Criminal Appeal No. - 148 of 2023, whereby the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected.
The petitioner was booked in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 280 of 2022 registered under Sections 302, 120(B) and 34 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act corresponding to JJB Case No. 332 of 2022.
The FIR discloses the complicity of the petitioner in the following words:- “The Child in Conflict with Law (hereinafter referred to as the “CICL” for short) about 2/3 days before the occurrence Patna High Court CR. REV. No.60 of 2024(3) dt.05-03-2024 called the son of the informant and took her to some unknown place. After about one hour, the son of the informant returns to his house. He came to know that all the accused persons abused him and assaulted him. On the date of occurrence, the son of the de facto complainant was murdered and she suspected that the accused persons, including the CICL, committed murder of her son.”
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in the instant case, the co-accused person has already been released on bail. The petitioner prayer for bail was rejected on the basis of social investigation report where it was stated that he used to earn some money by selling milk, but he did not pay the profit to his parents.
This Court is of the view that only on these grounds prayer for the bail of juvenile cannot be rejected. Moreover, Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, clearly states that the juvenile should be granted bail in all bailable or non-bailable offences. The proviso to Section 12(1) does not attract in respect of this juvenile.
Accordingly, the impugned order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2023 dated 19.10.2023 by the Addl. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.60 of 2024(3) dt.05-03-2024 District and Sessions Judge 1st -cum- Special Judge, Children Court, Patna is quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be enlarged on bail.
Operative part
The petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Patna in connection with JJB Case No. 332 of 2022, arising out of Danapur P. S. Case No. 280 of 2022 with condition that one of the sureties shall be his parent, who will undertake that, in future, he will not allow the CICL to be exposed to social, moral and psychological danger and restrict him from being associated with the criminals.
The revisional application is thus allowed. uttam/- U (Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 120(B), 302; Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 12.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.