Sandip Hansda v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1143 of 2023 Sandip Hansda Versus The State of Jharkhand -------- ..... … Petitioner …. …. Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Aniket Ranjan, Advocate : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P. -------- 03/1st November, 2023 1. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 31st August, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Godda in connection with Deodanr P.S. Case No.01 of 2023 by which the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner – CCL has submitted that the petitioner is 14 years old and he has been roped along with other co-accused in this case. The general and omnibus role has been assigned to all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. including the petitioner. The learned J.J. Board has rejected the bail application of the petitioner which has been affirmed by the learned appellate court without taking into consideration the social investigation report wherein there is nothing adverse against the CCL. 3. Learned A.P.P. opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. As per F.I.R. allegations, the informant gave the written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that he had taken the land on mortgage in village Litti for cultivation of potato crop and the same was being looked after by him and Abhishek Sah. On 05.01.2023 at 5 o’ clock Ranjit - 2 - Hansda, Sandip Hansda son of Boni Hansda, Ganesh Soren, Sanjay Kisku, Simen Hansda, Nirmal Baski, Sikan Hansda and the petitioner – Sandip Hansda along with 3 to 4 unknown persons came at the very land and asked the informant why the payment of Rs.1,000/- was not made. On the very issue all the accused persons assaulted with Lathi, danda, bricks and stones as well, whereby the informant and his associate Abhishek Sah sustained injuries. Hence, this F.I.R. was lodged. During investigation the injured Abhishek Sah died and the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was also added. 5. From perusal of the F.I.R. and case-diary, it is found that general and omnibus role has been assigned to all the accused in this occurrence including the petitioner—CCL and the unknown persons. Admittedly no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner—CCL in this case. 6. It is the settled law 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 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 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 - 7. From perusal of the social investigation report of the Juvenile, it appears that his attitude towards the family members, neighbors and friends is shown normal and cordial. It is also mentioned in the report that CCL has no criminal antecedent and in the whole report there is nothing adverse against him. 8. In view of the discussions as made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned J.J. Board and the learned Appellate Court needs interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is hereby allowed and the aforesaid orders are, hereby, quashed and set aside. 10. In consequence, thereof, the petitioner – CCL is directed to release on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each by his guardian to the satisfaction of the court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Godda in connection with Deodanr P.S. Case No.01 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 him from coming in association of the known criminals. Rohit (Subhash Chand, J.)