Md. Nizam v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 300 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 300 of 2023 Md. Nizam ..... Appellant The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent Versus CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant : For the State : -----
Legal Reasoning
M/s. Randhir Kumar Sonu Kumari, Advocates Mr. Fahad Allam, APP 2/19.05.2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that IA No. 4566 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the appellant to condone the delay of 37 days in filing this criminal appeal, which has been preferred against the order dated 27/01/2023 passed in Telaiya P.S. Case no. 67 of 2021 dated 05.04.2021, (registered for the offences u/s 302/34, 120B, of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of Arms Act.), corresponding to Spl. Children Case no. 01 of 2022 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge-l-cum-Special Judge (Children's Court), Koderma, whereby and where under, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected. The case is now pending in the court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge- I-cum-Special Judge (Children's Court), Koderma. 3. It has been submitted that the appellant is a child in conflict with the law and he is a poor man and he could not arrange the money for filing the instant criminal appeal and therefore the delay has been caused and there is no willful default on the part of the appellant in filing this criminal appeal delayed as he's in jail since 06/4/2021 and he would suffer irreparable loss if the delay in filing this criminal appeal is not condoned. 4. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is a delay of 37 days in filing this criminal appeal and the appellant is a child in conflict with law aged about 16 years. 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 300 of 2023 5. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid submissions and the cause shown in the interlocutory application for filing the criminal appeal delayed, the delay in filing this criminal appeal is hereby condoned. 6. Accordingly, IA No. 4566 of 2023 is allowed. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 300 of 2023 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that this appellant is a child in conflict with the law and he’s in custody 06/4/2021 and at the time of the occurrence he’s aged about 16 years. It has further been pointed out that the gist of the allegations as alleged in the FIR is that the two named accused persons namely Mahender Yadav and Manoj Yadav along with some unknown miscreants have killed the husband of the informant. It has been pointed out that this appellant is not named in the FIR and his name has appeared on the basis of the confessional statement of co- accused Mahendra Yadav and further it is submitted that both the named co- accused persons namely Mahendra Yadav and Manoj Yadav have been enlarged on bail vide B.A. No. 11812 of 2021 and B.A. No. 398 of 2022 by the coordinate bench of this court by order dated 27/11/2021 and order dated 25.04.2022 respectively. Further it has also been pointed out that the charge has been framed and the trial of this case is going on and therefore the possibility of tampering with the evidences is very remote and therefore they deserve to be enlarged on bail. 8. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the appellant is an accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC, but he did not deny this fact that he is not named in the FIR and his name has appeared in this case on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused person, who has been enlarged on bail. 9. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case. 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 300 of 2023 10. It is found that this appellant is a child in conflict with the law aged about 16 years. He is in judicial custody since 06/4/2021. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that there is no criminal history against this appellant and the two co-accused persons, who are named specifically in the FIR namely Mahendra Yadav and Manoj Yadav have been enlarged on bail by this court vide B.A. No. 11812 of 2021 and B.A. No. 398 of 2022 by order dated 27/11/2021 and order dated 25.04.2022 respectively. Further the name of this appellant has been pointed out in the involvement in the alleged offence on the basis of the confessional statement of the Mahendra Yadav who was enlarged on bail. 11. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts and submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, it is found that if the appellant is enlarged on bail, he could not come into the association of the known criminals and since the two co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail, who have been specifically named in the FIR, his further detention in custody would expose him to mental, moral, physical and psychological danger to his life and therefore in the interest of justice, it is found just and proper to give one opportunity to the appellant by releasing him on bail to come into the mainstream of the society. 12. Accordingly, the appellant Md. Nizam is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-l-cum-Special Judge (Children's Court), Koderma, in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case no. 67 of 2021, corresponding to Spl. Children Case no. 01 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and further subject to the conditions as follows:- (i) The father of the petitioner will be one of the bailers; (ii) The father of the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will take proper care and 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 300 of 2023 attention of the child and he will admit him in a school for further studies; (iii) Petitioner will cooperate in the trial / inquiry and he will remain present on each and every date before the learned Juvenile Justice Board and the I.O. as and when required by them, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned court below for cancellation of bail; (iv) The Secretary, DLSA is directed to take proper steps for counseling of the child and also facilitate him to get him admitted in a school and also to ensure that he properly attends the school and continue with his studies with the help of Legal cum probation officer. (v) Any other condition or conditions as the learned Court below may deem it fit and proper in the interest of child. 13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Secretary, DLSA, Koderma, the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Koderma- cum-Chairman, DLSA, Koderma and Deputy Commissioner-cum Vice Chairman, DLSA, Koderma through FAX to ensure that the Secretary, DLSA complies the direction in letter and spirit as passed by this Court without any hindrances and obstacles. 14. This appeal is allowed and the order dated 27/01/2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-l-cum-Special Judge (Children's Court), Koderma in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case no. 67 of 2021, corresponding to Spl. Children Case no. 01 of 2022 is set-aside. R.Kumar (Navneet Kumar, J.)