Niraj Kumar Singh Represented Through his father and Natural guardian namely Pramod Kumar Singh v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 418 of 2022 Niraj Kumar Singh Represented Through his father and Natural guardian namely Pramod Kumar Singh The State of Jharkhand Versus ….... --- --- Appellant --- --- Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant : Mrs. Renu Bala, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P. 08/08.05.2023 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
Legal Reasoning
and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO Act, Palamau in Misc. Criminal Application No. 662 of 2022 in POCSO Case No. 36 of 2021, whereby and where under the prayer for release of the appellant on bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 36 of 2021 arising out of Hussainabad P.S. Case No. 46 of 2021 dated 28.02.2021 registered under Section 364/34 and 302 of the I.P.C has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the gist of the allegation as set out in the F.I.R. was that the informant, who is the father of the deceased alleged that his minor daughter aged 17 years was kidnapped and killed but the role of the appellant has not been attributed at all in the said F.I.R. nor this appellant has been named and the co-accused persons namely Dinesh Yadav, Harendra Yadav, Vijay Yadav and Jogendra Yadav have been named in the F.I.R. It is submitted that name of this appellant has appeared in this case on the basis of his confessional statement and no incriminating article is said to have been recovered. It is pointed out on behalf of the appellant that he is a child in conflict with law and he is in jail since 06.03.2021 and during the course of the trial two witnesses have been examined including the informant Rajendra Yadav as P.W.2 and Sanjay Kumar Yadav as P.W.1. It has been pointed out that neither the P.W.1 Sanjay Kr. Yadav nor the P.W.2 Rajendra Yadav, who is the father of the victim has deposed about the involvement of this appellant in the commission of the offence rather they have taken the name of co- -2- accused Dinesh Yadav, Harendra Yadav, Vijay Yadav and Jogendra Yadav with whom the informant have had a quarrel. Therefore, it is urged on behalf of the appellant that let the appellant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and submitted that although the name of the appellant has not appeared but his name has appeared on the basis of the confessional statement and he has been apprehended in this case on the basis of the call detail report (CDR) of the mobile, which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant, by which it appears that this appellant had been talking with the father of the deceased who is the informant in the present case (P.W.2) and therefore he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail when the trial of the case is going on. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case. 6. It is manifested that the appellant is a child in conflict with law who is aged about 16 years and he has not criminal antecedent as per the social investigation report and as per the case diary also. Further, it appears from the scanned copy of the lower court record that the trial of the case has commenced and father of the deceased- informant (P.W.2) Rajendra Yadav has been examined and he has not supported about the involvement of this appellant in the commission of the offence. Further P.W.1 Sanjay Kr. Yadav has also been examined and he has also not supported the involvement of this appellant in the commission of the offence. There is nothing on the record except the confessional statement of the appellant. From the social investigation report it appears that appellant has passed the matriculation examination in the year 2021 and he had been in a good relationship with the neighbours and co-villagers and the appellant is said to have been involved in such type of occurrence only because of ignorance and lack of proper guidance and therefore, it has also been suggested in the social investigation report that one opportunity may be given to him to come to the main stream of the society. 7. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid fact, it is found that in the absence of any criminal history against the appellant, if he is released on bail, he will not come in association of known criminals and -3- further, since in absence of any specific evidence adduced against this appellant, his further detention in the observation home would expose him to mental, moral, physical and psychological danger to his life and therefore, it just and fair to give one opportunity to the appellant to come into the main stream of the society by enlarging him on bail. 8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant named above 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 learned Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO Act, Palamau in connection with POCSO Case No. 36 of 2021 arising out of Hussainabad P.S. Case No. 46 of 2021, subject to the condition as set out under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C and with further subject to the conditions, inter alia as under: 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 attention of the child and he will admit him in a school for further studies; iii. The Secretary, DLSA is directed to take proper steps for counselling 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. iv. Any other condition or conditions as the learned Court below may deem it fit and proper in the interest of child. v. Appellant will cooperate in the trial of this case, which is going on and he will remain present on each and every date fixed in this case, failing which, bail shall be cancelled. 9. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO Act, Palamau in Misc. Criminal Application No. 662 of 2022 in POCSO Case No. 36 of 2021, arising out of Hussainabad P.S. Case No. 46 of 2021 is set aside. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Secretary, DLSA, Palamau, the Principal District Judge cum Chairman, DLSA, Palamau and the Deputy Commissioner cum Vice Chairman, DLSA, Palamau through FAX to ensure that the Secretary, DLSA complies the direction -4- in letter and spirit as passed by this Court without any hindrances and obstacles. Since the case is pending for a long time, the learned court below is directed to dispose of the case within a period of 6 months positively from the date of receipt of this order. (Navneet Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty