Dilip Oraon v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.959 of 2023 Dilip Oraon ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------ : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, APP For the Petitioner For the State -------- 06/06.12.2023
Legal Reasoning
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The instant Criminal Revision has been directed against the order dated 07.07.2023 whereby the learned appellate court while dismissing the appeal has affirmed the order passed by the learned JJ Board wherein the bail application of the juvenile has been rejected. 3. The brief facts leading to this criminal revision are that both the victim lodged the FIR with these allegations that on 16.02.2023 the music and dancing was going on in dhumkudiya ground of the village. The victim alongwith her friend had also gone to watch the dance. At 9 O'clock in the night accused Mohit dragged her friend and Roshan dragged her to an isolated place where both had committed rape upon both the victims respectively and in the morning at 5 O' clock both the victims were set free. Three days ago also the accused Raushan, Dilip, Shivam had also raped her and they had criminally intimidated not to disclose in regard to the occurrence. 4. On this written information, case crime no. 10 of 2023 was registered under section 363, 376DA and 506 of IPC and also section 6 of POCSO Act against the Raushan, Dilip, Shivam. 5. The IO conducted the investigation of this case and in para-5 of the case diary restatement of victim Suchita Kumari and in para-6 of the case diary restatement of victim Manita Oraon were recorded who reiterated the allegations as made in the written information itself. In para-127 of the case diary the age of victim Suchita Kumari is determined 12 to 13 years vide in para-128. The age of victim Manita Oraon is also determined 12 to 13 years as on the basis of radiological examination. In para-140 of the case diary, it was opined that the sexual assault cannot be ruled out in regard to the victim Suchita Kumari, while in para-141 in regard to victim Manita Oraon it has 2 Cr. Rev. No.959 of 2023 been opined that the sexual assault cannot be ruled out. The statement of victim was also recorded under section 164 of Cr.PC in which both the victims have corroborated the prosecution story in regard to both the incidents though contradictory to the contents of the FIR. 6. In social investigation report of petitioner Dilip Oraon his relations with family members are shown cordials. Child's opinion and reaction towards discipline is shown positively. His attitude towards his classmate, friends, teachers and neighbours are shown positive. In whole of the social investigation report there is no criminal antecedent of the CCL and no association of any known criminal is shown. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner is named in the FIR yet in regard to the occurrence which had taken place three days ago from the second occurrence. The statement of both the victims are also contradictory to the contents of the FIR which was also lodged jointly by the victims themselves and there is nothing adverse in the social investigation report of the petitioner juvenile but the learned JJ Board and learned appellate court have rejected the bail application of the petitioner without taking into consideration the social investigation report. 8. Learned APP for the State opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. It is the settled law that the bail application of a juvenile has
Decision
to be disposed of taking into consideration section 12 of JJ Act, 2015 wherein it is provided that the bail application of a juvenile has to be allowed except the circumstances as shown in proviso of section 12 of the J.J. Act. While disposing of the bail application of juvenile the gravity or nature of the offence can not be taken into consideration. As such the bail application of a juvenile is governed under section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015. 10. 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 3 Cr. Rev. No.959 of 2023 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.” 11. In view of the submissions made and material on record though the role of the petitioner is also shown of committing rape upon the victim and same is also corroborated with the medical evidence. Yet the petitioner being juvenile his social investigation report is to be taken into consideration. In whole of the social investigation report of the juvenile there is nothing adverse against him. The learned JJ Board who rejected the bail application of the petitioner and the same has been affirmed by the learned appellate court though based on the ground that the release of the petitioner juvenile would expose him to psychological, social or physical danger and he would come in association of known criminal but the same is not based on the social investigation report. There is no such material in the social investigation report as the finding recorded by the learned JJ Board which was affirmed by the learned appellate court is perverse and the same needs interference. 12. This Criminal Revision is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned J.J. Board and the order passed by the learned Appellate Court are set aside. 13. Let the child in conflict with law be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) and two 4 Cr. Rev. No.959 of 2023 sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga in connection with Bhandra P.S. Case No.10 of 2023, which are to be furnished on behalf of the guardian of the child in conflict with law. 14. 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.)