Umesh Singh, son of Kaleshwar Singh, Resident of Village Podhotoli, P.O. & P.S. Kamdara v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1153 of 2023 Umesh Singh, son of Kaleshwar Singh, Resident of Village Podhotoli, P.O. & P.S. Kamdara, District Gumla. Represented through his father Kaleshwar Singh, son of late Jugnu Singh, Resident of Village Podhotoli, P.O. & P.S. Kamdara, District Gumla ….. ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party ------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------- For the Petitioner For the State -------- Order No.03 /Dated: 5th January 2024
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Kumar Nishant, Advocate : Mrs. Saket Kumar, A.P.P. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 01.08.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla in Criminal Appeal Case No.34 of 2023, whereby the appeal was dismissed and affirmed the order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, J.J. Board, Gumla in connection with Kamdara P.S. Case No.18 of 2022 dated 21.05.2022 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.374 of 2022 registered under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, wherein the bail application of the juvenile was rejected. 3. The brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are that the written information was given by the mother of the victim with these allegations that her daughter had left the house on 05.05.2022 to take exam and on that date, she stayed at the house of her maternal grandmother. On 06.05.2022, she went to the Ursuline Convent Girls High School, Konbir, Nawatoli but she did not come back to house and her phone was switched off. On 07.05.2022 at 01:00 O’clock of day time, it was told by her that she was at Murga and she was brought there by her sister and it was told by the victim that the petitioner, who is CCL had took her with him to his house, wherein in the night he established physical relation with her against her will and, thereafter, the FIR was lodged. 4. During investigation, the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corroborated the prosecution story. -2- 5. During investigation, the victim was medically examined on 22.05.2022 and as per the medical report on the date of occurrence, the victim was pregnant of six weeks; while the occurrence has taken place on 06.05.2022 just 15 days prior to the date of medical examination. 6. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The petitioner is juvenile and his Social Investigation Report is also on record. In the Social Investigation Report of the juvenile, nothing is shown rather it is stated that the CCL is of submissive nature and there was love affiars between the victim and the CCL. No criminal antecedent is shown against him. 8. It is settled law that the bail application of a juvenile should ordinarily be allowed, except the circumstances as laid down under the proviso of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015. In view of the Social Investigation Report, none of the ground is shown against the CCL as provided under the proviso of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015. 9. 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 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.” -3- 10. So far as the Social Investigation Report of the CCL is concerned, from perusal of the same, it is found that there is nothing adverse against the CCL. 11. In view of the submissions made and the materials on record, nothing is on record to show that the release of the petitioner on bail would expose him to physical, psychological or moral danger or defeat the ends of justice. As such, the impugned order passed by the learned J.J. Board, which was affirmed by the learned appellate Court, whereby the bail application of the CCL has been rejected needs interference and this Criminal Revision deserves to be allowed. 12. Accordingly, the instant 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 hereby set aside. 13. 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 on behalf of his guardian to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The guardian of the CCL would also give undertaking that he would keep his vigil eyes upon him and will restrain him from coming in association of the known criminals. (Subhash Chand, J.) Madhav/-