Md. Shakib … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 586 of 2023 Md. Shakib …. …Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …Opp. Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P. Order No. 05/ dated 09.02.2024 --------
Legal Reasoning
Learned Counsel Mr. Sourav Kumar on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the State, learned A.P.P. are present. 2. The instant Cr. Revision has been directed against the order dated 18.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 32 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur in Mango P.S. Case No. 169 of 2022 has been affirmed wherein the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case the role assigned to the petitioner is similar to that of Parwez Ansari @ Mohammad Taiyab @ Parwej Ansari @ Perwez Ansari who has been granted bail by this Court. The only role attributed to the petitioner is that he was watching and guarding as well at the time of commission of the alleged offence as per direction of the main perpetrator of the crime. In view of the above contended to give the privilege of bail. 2 4. The learned A.P.P. opposed the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and contended that though the role attributed to the petitioner is also watching and guarding as per direction issued by the main perpetrator yet in Social Investigation Report it has been stated that the said offence was committed on account of bad company of the juvenile. 5. The brief facts leading to this Cr. Revision are that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged by the informant Chandra Shekhar Choudhary with these allegations that on 21.05.2022 at 9 O’ clock his son Gulshan Kumar Choudhary who was working at Shyam Medical Store had told to the proprietor of the Medical Store that he was to go to his house by 5 O’clock in the evening on account of some urgent work. At 8 O’clock a phone call came by Gulshan Kumar Choudhary that he has been abducted. This phone call came from the Mobile No. 6205641259. Thereafter various phone calls came. The informant also contacted on the said phone, the same came switched off. His son had also Splendor motorcycle bearing registration No. JH05-CZ/5527 with him. Over the mobile phone the name of the abductor was told. On this written information case crime No. 169 of 2022 was registered with the police station Mango District-Jamshedpur, against the accused Imran and unknown person for the offence under Sections 363,385 and during investigation the same was amended under Sections 302,201,364A read with Section 34 3 of IPC. 6. During investigation the accused Samir Ahmad was apprehended in which he confessed the guilt and stated that Imran who was addicted of brown sugar had conspired along with him and other co-accused Samir, Shamsad, Sakib, Parvej and Danish that Gulshan had taken the keypad mobile and 10,000/- rupees from Imran and same was not given back. Imran had also conspired along with co-accused that motorcycle and mobile shall be snatched from Gulshan Kumar and the ransom shall be demanded by him and if the same was not given, he would be murdered. Under that plan Imran along with other co-accused reached to Bihari Bari Sabri Nuri Maszid and there Imran brought along with him Gulshan Kumar. His money, mobile phone and bike was also snatched. Imran was armed with knife. Imran and Shamsad both assaulted Gulshan with wooden plank. Thereafter Imran and Shamsad also assaulted with stone and brick as well and after murder of Gulshan, Imran, Samir, Shamshad, Parvez and Danish all had concealed the weapons used in the murder behind the bush. Mobile phone of Gulshan was handed over to him to conceal the same. Wearing articles of Gulshan were with Imran. The dead-body and belongings of the deceased were recovered on the confessional statement and pointing out Imran. The confessional statement of the present petitioner was also recorded. In the confessional statement of co-accused the only attributed to the petitioner is that he was posted as a 4 guard while Shamshad and Imran both had committed murder of the deceased-Gulshan. As per post-mortem report there are several incised and lacerated wound and also ligature mark as antemortem injuries. Cause of death is shown as a result of strangulation by a ligature material. 7. In Social Investigation Report of the CCL, his relations with family members, neighbours and friends is shown cordial. No bad habit is shown. No criminal antecedent is shown. There is nothing adverse against him to show in the whole Social Investigation Report. 8. It is the settled law that the bail application of a juvenile is to be disposed of in view of the provisions of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 wherein it has been provided that the bail application of the juvenile should ordinarily be allowed except in those exceptional circumstances as shown in the proviso of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2000. Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2000 is reproduced as under: Section 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, 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 the with or without surety or placed under 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 5 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 1[or a place of safety, as the case may be,] in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before the 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. 9. So far as the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation is concerned, the only role attributed to the C.C.L. is that he was posted as a guard at the time when committing murder of the deceased-Gulshan Kumar by the co-accused. There is no other evidence against him and in the Social Investigation Report nothing adverse is shown against the C.C.L. 10. The learned J.J.Board has rejected the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that his release on bail would expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and he would in association of known criminals. The order passed by the J.J.Board wherein the bail of the C.C.L. has been rejected is based on perverse finding whereas there is nothing on record to base that on being released on bail, the C.C.L. would come in association of known criminals. The same order was also affirmed by the Appellate Court. 6 11. Similarly situated co-CCL has already been granted bail in Cr. Revision No. 751 of 2023 vide order dated 04.12.2023 by this Court. 12. In view of the submissions made and the material on record, the impugned order passed by the J.J.Board and the Appellate Court need interference. Accordingly, this Cr. Revision deserves to be allowed. 13. This Cr. Revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by the J.J. Board and the Appellate Court are set aside. 14. Let the child in conflict in law be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) and two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur in connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 169 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. No. 1214 of 2022 which are to be furnished on behalf of the guardian of the child in conflict in law. 15. 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. P.K.S (Subhash Chand, J.)