Prakash Kumar Yadav @ Molu … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 975 of 2023 Prakash Kumar Yadav @ Molu …. …Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …Opp. Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND For the Petitioner For the State For the Informant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate Order No. 06/ dated 11.01.2024 -------- Learned Counsel Mr. Lukesh Kumar on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the State, learned A.P.P. and also on behalf of O.P.No.2, learned Counsel are present. 2. The instant Cr. Revision is directed against the order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, Children Court, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 115 of 2023 whereby the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal has affirmed the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad in Katras P.S. Case No. 38 of 2023 wherein the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected. 3. The brief facts leading to this Cr. Revision are that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged by the informant-Ritesh Kumar with these allegations that on 22.01.2023 at 11 O’ clock he along with his brother-in-law was at Chandeshwar Tea Shop. At the same time his brother-in-law received the phone call from Gautam Yadav who had called him near Aakashkinari Hanuman Mandir to have Litti Chokha. His brother-in-law agreed to go there despite his resistance not to go. In the meantime, near Kailudih Chowk, 2 Vikas Bajrangi, Molu Yadav @ Prakash Yadav, Dhullu Rajbhar, Bholu Gope, Sajjad, Binod Yadav, Chhotu Rawani, Chandan Yadav, Shera Yadav, Annu Yadav along with 4 to 5 other persons were roaming. The informant was apprehension of some unbecoming event. In the meantime, Gautam Yadav who is the brother of Dilip Yadav also reached there. His brother-in-law when proceeded to meet Gautam Yadav, Sara, Molu Yadav @ Prakash Yadav, Chhotu Rawani, Dhullu Rajbhar, Bholu Gope, Sajjad, Gautam Yadav, Shera Yadav, Binod Yadav, Chandan Yadav, Annu Yadav, Vishal Bajrangi (Bhanja of Vikas Bajrangi), Aman Bajranti, Ayush Bajrangi (nephew of Vikas Bajrangi) and other 4 to 5 persons all had surrounded the brother-in-law of the informant and began to open fire. Hearing sound of bullets, he had also reached at the place of occurrence and he took his brother-in-law with the help of his friend Manish Yadav and villagers to Nichitpur Hospital from there he was referred to Asharfi Hospital where his brother-in-law was declared dead. This occurrence was also seen by the villagers and his friend Manish Yadav. 4. In para 8 of the case diary the informant reiterated all the allegations which are made in the F.I.R. In para 9 of the case diary statement of Manish Yadav was recorded. Same kind of statement is also given by the witness Manish Yadav who has attributed general and omnibus role to all the named accused shown in the F.I.R. and unknown persons as well. 3 5. In view of the postmortem report, there are multiple firearm injuries but admittedly no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in commission of the alleged offence. 6. So far as the Social Investigation Report of the Juvenile CCL herein is concerned, from the perusal of the same, it is found that his relation with the family members is found cordial. No bad habit is shown. He is shown to have studied in IXth Class. His attitude towards his friend and the neighbour is shown normal though it is stated that the child is in bad society but nowhere is mentioned in the Social Investigation Report that this C.C.L. was in society of any known criminal. So far as the two cases is concerned, one is the present case and another also is the connected with the present case. 7. It is the settled law that the bail application of a juvenile is
Decision
to be disposed of in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the J.J.Act, 2015 in which it is provided that ordinarily the bail application of a juvenile should be allowed except the three circumstances as shown in proviso of the said section. While disposing of the bail application of a juvenile, the gravity and nature of the offence cannot be taken into consideration rather it is the Social Investigation Report of the C.C.L. which is to be considered. 8. Herein the Section 12 of the 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, 4 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 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 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. From the perusal of the Social Investigation Report of the CCL, it is found that there is nothing on record to show that the CCL was in company of the known criminal or his release on bail would expose him physical, psychological or moral danger or there is nothing on record to base that ends of justice defeats if the CCL is released on bail. 10. So far as the lack of control of the parent is concerned, the father of the juvenile has also given an undertaking the he will keep vigil eye upon the CCL. 5 11. In view of the submissions made and the materials on record, the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court needs interference. Accordingly, this Cr. Revision deserves to be allowed. 12. This Cr. Revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court is set aside. 13. The CCL is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) and two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 38 of 2023 on behalf of his guardian. In addition, the guardian of the juvenile would give an undertaking that he would keep vigil eye upon the CCL and would control him from coming in association of known criminal. P.K.S. (Subhash Chand, J.)