…............ Rohit Mahara, aged about 17 years, S/o Sukula Mehra, present represented though his v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 550 of 2023 …............ Rohit Mahara, aged about 17 years, S/o Sukula Mehra, present represented though his natural guardian his father namely Sukula Mehra, S/o Gendu Mehra, R/o village Ghoda Murga, PS Govindpur, PO Chhota Ambona, … Petitioner District Dhanbad. ..... Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------ : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP For the Petitioner For the State -------- 03/30.08.2023 This criminal revision has been preferred on behalf of petitioner-CCL against the order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad in connection with Nirsa (Kalubathan) P.S. Case No. 338 of 2022 whereby the bail application
Legal Reasoning
of the petitioner was rejected and the same was affirmed by the appellate court vide order dated 17.04.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2023. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per FIR allegations the date of occurrence is 05.10.2022 and the dead body was recovered on 06.10.2022 but this FIR was lodged on 11.10.2022. There is no explanation of inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. In the FIR itself the allegation is made against the petitioner that the petitioner alongwith co-accused Bhuneshwar Mahara was seen with the deceased. In the FIR, it is alleged that the dead body was recovered near the railway line and there was injury on the head and temporal region caused by the knife while as per postmortem report, the cause of death is shown strangulation. 3. There is nothing adverse against the petitioner in the Social Investigation Report. The learned JJ Board vide order dated 03.03.2023 rejected the bail application of the petitioner taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and the appellate court also dismissed the appeal affirming the order passed by the learned JJ Board without taking into consideration the social investigation report in which there is nothing adverse against him. 4. The learned APP opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that though the FIR of this case was lodged belated yet the case is based on ocular evidence. The eye witness of the occurrence is Jitendra Gope whose statement was recorded under para-12 2 Cr. Rev. No.550 of 2023 of the case diary and this witness stated that he had seen the accused persons strangulating the deceased. The statement of this witness is also corroborated with the medical evidence and the learned JJ Board and the learned appellate court has rightly rejected the bail application of the petitioner. 5. The FIR of this case was lodged by Sriram Mahara with these allegations that Bhuneshwar Mahara and Rohit Mahara both had taken his son Jagdish Mahara from his house on 05.10.2022 by the motorcycle to visit the fair on the occasion of vijayadashmi. Till late night, his son did not come back and search was made. It came to know that his son was murdered and the body was placed near the railway line on 06.10.2022 at 11 O'clock. The body was recovered and the same was identified to be of his son. There was injury on the head and temporal region caused by knife like weapon and this FIR was registered on Case Crime No. 0338 of 2022 with the police station concerned under section 302, 364, 201 read with 34 of IPC against the accused Bhuneshwar Mahara and Rohit Mahara. 6. As per FIR allegation, the prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence which is the last seen evidence of the deceased alongwith the accused including the present petitioner. During investigation, the eye witness Jitendra Gope is alleged to have seen the accused persons committing murder of deceased by strangulation but the statement of this eye witness was also recorded on 13.10.2022 and the FIR was also lodged six days belated from the date of occurrence of which there is no explanation on behalf of prosecution. 7. The petitioner is juvenile and it is the settled law that the bail
Decision
application of a juvenile is to be disposed of taking into consideration the social investigation report. Nature or gravity of the offence cannot be the factor to reject the bail application of juvenile. 8. In view of section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 ordinarily the bail application of a juvenile should be allowed and it can be rejected only in certain exceptions given in proviso of section 12 of JJ Act. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 reads as under: “12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.- (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, 3 Cr. Rev. No.550 of 2023 notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) 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 sub-section (1) by the officer-in- charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home '[or a place of safety, as the case may be,] 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) 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 bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail. This clause provides that 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, then 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. This clause also clarifies that the person shall not be released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring this person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or that the person's release would defeat the ends of justice. The Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. This clause also provides when a person having been apprehended is not released on bail under this clause by the officer in-charge of the police station, then the officer shall keep the person in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board. Further, when the person is not released on bail by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, during the period of pendency of the inquiry regarding that person, for a period that may be specified in the order. This clause states that when a child in conflict with law is unable to furnish bail within seven days of the bail order, then such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of conditions of bail.” 4 Cr. Rev. No.550 of 2023 9. The social investigation report of the petitioner is on record. From the perusal of the same, it is found that his attitude towards his parents, neighbours, friends is shown good and normal. There is no criminal antecedent of the juvenile. Nothing is in social investigation report that the juvenile was ever in company of known criminals. 10. In the social investigation report, nothing adverse is shown against the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the CCL would come in company of known criminals or his release on bail would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice. 11. In view of the submissions made and also keeping in view the social investigation report on record and the evidence collected during investigation the impugned order passed by the learned JJ Board and the appellate court needs interference. 12. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned JJ Board and the learned appellate court are set aside. 13. In consequence thereof, the petitioner-CCL is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount on behalf of his guardian to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The guardian of the CCL would also give undertaking that he would keep his vigil eyes on him and will restrain him from being in association of the known criminals. 14. Accordingly, this criminal revision stands disposed of. RKM (Subhash Chand, J.)