Nisha Kumari @ Nishu, D/o Shri Basudev Mahto, through her father Basudev Mahto, son v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1092 of 2023 Nisha Kumari @ Nishu, D/o Shri Basudev Mahto, through her father Basudev Mahto, son of Pawan Mahto, R/o Barwa Tand, Near Durga Mandir, Gola, Purab Dih, Kumhardaga, P.O. & P.S. Gola, District Ramgarh. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND -------- For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vijayant Verma, Advocate : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P. -------- 05/29th February, 2024 1. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the learned appellate court refused to interfere with the order dated 28.01.2023 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ramgarh in connection with Gola P.S. Case No.09 of 2023, wherein the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are that the FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased that his son Priyanshu Prasad 18 years old had left the house for the shop situated at D.V.C. Chowk, Gola on 26.01.2023 at 07:30 pm. After some distance near Kumardaga more his mobile phone No.9142041271 was found switched off. Search was made by him but no whereabout was known. Near Kumardaga More in CCTV footage, it was found that the son of the informant was going while talking on phone with someone. With the utter belief that the son of the informant has been abducted, this FIR was lodged against the unknown persons, which was registered as Case Crime No.09 of 2023 under Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation was conducted and during investigation on the basis - 2 - of CDR details of the mobile of abducted Priyanshu Prasad, which was collected by the Investigating Officer, it was found that the deceased had long talk for 1290 seconds and, thereafter, he had talked for 18 seconds with his sister. 3. In view of paragraph No.12 of the case diary, on the basis of CDR details, the deceased had talked for a long time with the mobile number, which was of petitioner. The dead body of the abducted Priyanshu Prasad was recovered floating in the well near Kisan High School. 4. In view of paragraph No.40 of the case diary, the inquest report and postmortem of the dead body was conducted. The petitioner was interrogated. 5. In view of paragraph No.50 of the case diary, as per the CDR details, conference conversation was took place among the deceased, the petitioner and the accused Raushan Kumar. 6. In view of paragraph No.55 of the case diary, the statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which, she disclosed that she was having love affairs with Raushan Kumar and at the behest of Raushan Kumar, she had called the deceased near Kisan High School, where the said occurrence took place and Raushan Kumar had informed her that he had committed murder of Priyanshu Prasad. 7. The confessional statement of Raushan Kumar was recorded and after concluding the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet under Sections 302/ 201/ 120-B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Raushan Kumar and the CCL, petitioner herein. 8. In Social Investigation Report of the juvenile, her attitude towards her family members, neighbours, friends, classmate and teachers is shown positive. Nothing is adverse against her in the Social Investigation Report. 9. The parameters for disposal of a bail application of the juvenile and for the regular bail application under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are altogether different. It is the settled law - 3 - that while disposing of the bail application of a Juvenile the gravity or nature of the offence cannot be taken into consideration. It is also the settled law that ordinarily the bail application of a Juvenile should be allowed unless and until there are exceptional circumstance as laid down under proviso of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act which reads 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 abailable 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 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 persons 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 or a place of safety, as the case may be 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.” 10. In view of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation the role, which has been attributed to the petitioner-CCL is that she called the deceased over his mobile phone at the behest of co-accused, namely, Raushan Kumar and asked him to come nearby the well, where the co-accused Raushan Kumar has committed murder and she came to know in regard to the murder of deceased from Raushan Kumar himself, who is stated by the CCL to be her paramour. 11. So far as the Social Investigation Report of the juvenile is concerned, nothing adverse is given against him. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that upon release of the petitioner on bail, she would come in association of any known criminal or would expose her to physical, psychological or moral danger. 12. In view of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner and also taking into consideration the Social - 4 - Investigation Report of the CCL where, there is nothing adverse against her. As such, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court needs interference and this Criminal Revision deserves to be allowed. 13. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is hereby allowed and the aforesaid orders are, hereby, quashed and set aside. 14. In consequence, thereof, the petitioner – CCL is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each by her guardian to the satisfaction of the court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ramgarh in connection with Gola P.S. Case No.09 of 2023, subject to condition that guardian of the Juvenile shall give an undertaking that he would keep vigil eye on the Juvenile and would control her from coming in association of the known criminals. Madhav/- A.F.R. (Subhash Chand, J.)