Marshal Hembrom @ Marshal Hembram v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.54 of 2022 Marshal Hembrom @ Marshal Hembram ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------ : Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, Advocate : Mr. Fahad Allam, APP For the Petitioner For the State -------- 08/18.12.2023
Legal Reasoning
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The instant Criminal Revision is against the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Children Court, Dumka in Criminal Misc. Appeal No.12 of 2021 whereby the appeal was dismissed and the order dated 21.08.2021 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate I/C Juvenile Justice Board, Dumka in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 112 of 2020 and enquiry no.122/2021 rejecting the bail application of the juvenile was affirmed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR of this case was lodged against the unknown persons and the name of the petitioner juvenile reflected during investigation. There is no cogent evidence against the petitioner in regard to commission of the said offence. 4. In social investigation report of the juvenile there is nothing adverse against him but the learned JJ Board and the learned appellate court both have ignored the social investigation report of the petitioner and rejected the bail application of a juvenile. 5. The learned APP for the State opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The FIR of this case was lodged by the informant Gangaram Hembram with these allegations that his son Ranjit Hembram 13 years old was studying in Class-VIth and as usual had gone to take tution from his tutor. On 21.09.2020 at 11 O'clock he had left the house by the cycle but did not come back till late night. The search of the child was made but no whereabouts was known. On 22.09.2020 at 8:30 it came to know from the villagers that dead body of a boy was lying near Kaneharey School. The informant alongwith family members and villagers reached there and the dead body was identified to be of his son but the cycle and the mobile phone 2 Cr. Rev. No.54 of 2022 of his son was not found from there and this FIR was lodged. This FIR was lodged against the unknown persons. 7. In para-5 of the case diary restatement of the informant was recorded in which he reiterated the allegations made in the FIR and same kind of statement was also given by the witness Fulmani Murmu, the mother of the deceased. In para-7 of the case diary the statement of Robin Hansda was recorded who told that one Mantu Murmu of the village had told him that the son of informant Ranjit Hembram alongwith two boys was seen by him. 8. In para-8 of the case diary statement of Mantu Murmu was recorded who told that the deceased son of the informant Ranjit Hembram alongwith his friend Marshal Hembram and two other boys of the village were seen by him. Marshal Hembram told him the name of two other boys Rajendra Kisku and Darbari Kisku thereafter he alongwith his wife were engaged in purchasing in the market and later on in the night came to know that the son of the informant has not come back to the house and next day the dead body was recovered. The same kind of statement is also given by Biti Hansda in para-9 of the case diary. Marshal Hembram was nabbed by the police and his confessional statement was recorded in para-28 of the case diary. In which, he stated that the deceased Ranjit Hembram, Rajendra Kisku and Darbari Kisku all were the friends. His friend Rajendra Kisku and Darbari Kisku both liked the sister of Ranjit and his both the friends also began to tease the sister of Ranjit, same was opposed by Ranjit Hembram. Rajendra Kisku and Darbari Kisku both had criminally intimidated Ranjit on being opposed by him. On 21.09.2020 Rajendra Kisku and Darbari Kisku also asked him to accompany them. They also called Ranjit over the mobile phone who had come to take tution. As pre-plotting they went by the motorcycle. He and Darbari both caught hold of Ranjit. Thereafter Rajendra Kisku and Darbari both assaulted him and also strangulated whereby Ranjit died and after his death, the dead body was thrown by them. 9. The confession of co-accused Darbari Kisku and Rajendra Kisku were also recorded who also corroborated the same. 10. As per post-mortem report there were several ante-mortem injury on the body of deceased and cause of death was hemorrhage on 3 Cr. Rev. No.54 of 2022 account of injury caused by hard and blunt object. The CDR details of the accused persons are also being annexed with the case diary. 11. It is the settled law that the bail application of a juvenile is to
Decision
be disposed of in view of the provisions given in section 12 of JJ Act, 2015 wherein it has been provided that ordinarily the bail application of a juvenile should be allowed except the circumstances as shown in proviso of section 12 of the J.J. Act. 12. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as under: “12. (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order. (4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail.” 13. It is also the settled law that while disposing of the bail application of a juvenile the gravity or nature of the offence is not to be taken into consideration rather it is the social investigation report which has to be considered. In social investigation report of the juvenile his relations with the family members, neighbours, friends, classmate and teachers are shown cordial. There is nothing adverse in social investigation report. No criminal antecedent of the juvenile is shown. No bad company of known criminal is shown. 14. The learned JJ Board has rejected the bail application of the 4 Cr. Rev. No.54 of 2022 petitioner juvenile on the ground that if he released on bail he would come in contact with anti-social elements and this finding recorded by the learned JJ Board was affirmed by the learned appellate court while dismissing the appeal. 15. There is nothing in the social investigation report of the juvenile that his release on bail would expose him to physical, psychological or moral danger or would defeat the ends of justice or he would come in association of known criminal. The finding recorded by the learned JJ Board and the learned appellate court are found being based on the conjecture, same are not based on the social investigation report, accordingly, needs interference. 16. This Criminal Revision is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned J.J. Board and the order affirmed by the learned Appellate Court are set aside. 17. Let the child in conflict with law be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand) and two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Magistrate I/C Juvenile Justice Board, Dumka in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 112 of 2020 and enquiry no.122/2021 which are to be furnished on behalf of the guardian of the child in conflict with law. 18. The guardian of the juvenile is also directed to give an undertaking that he will keep vigil eye upon the juvenile and will control him from coming in association of known criminals. RKM (Subhash Chand, J.)