Satish Singh, aged about 17 years, son of Sukhdev Singh @ Situ Singh, represented v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1251 of 2023 Satish Singh, aged about 17 years, son of Sukhdev Singh @ Situ Singh, represented by his elder brother Manish Kumar Singh, son of Sukhdev Singh @ Situ Singh, both residents of village Tukai, P.S. Basia, P.O. Kumahari, District Gumla, Jharkhand ….. ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------- ------ For the Petitioner For the State --------
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. Order No.03 /Dated: 11th December, 2023 1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State are present. 2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla in Criminal Appeal Case No.48 of 2023, whereby the appeal was dismissed and affirmed the order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.380 of 2022 dated 23.12.2022 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.309 of 2023 registered under Section 326, 307, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, by order dated 27.04.2023, offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added and under Section 27 of the Arms, wherein the bail application of the juvenile was rejected. 3. The brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are that the FIR of this case was lodged with these allegations that the informant had been residing with her younger son in a rented house for last three years after the death of her husband. For last 12 years, she was in relation with Sukhdev @ Bittu Singh of Tukai-Kumhari, Gumla, due to which, the son of Bittu Singh, namely, Satish Singh and his wife Parro Devi had been continuously threatening her. Prior to the incident, Satish Singh threatened her to kill. However, on 22.12.2022 when the victim was in her rented room, the accused Satish Singh, 21 years old intruded in the house of the informant-victim and opened fire, which hit on her chest and, thereafter, he fled away. The informant-victim was immediately rushed to the Sadar Hospital, Gumla for treatment, from there, she was referred to RIMS, Ranchi and during treatment, the informant-victim died on -2- 31.12.2022. Initially, the FIR was lodged for the offence under Sections 326, 307, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, which was registered as Case Crime No.380 of 2022 with the police station concerned and on account of death of the informant-victim, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was enhanced. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Vijay Oraon, Vijay Prasad, Sukhmani Devi and Satish Oraon, all four corroborated the prosecution story. The re-statement of the victim was recorded in paragraph No.15 of the case diary, in which, she reiterated the contents of the FIR, which was lodged by herself. 4. As per the medical certificate in regard to the cause of death issued from the RIMS, Ranchi, the victim died on 31.12.2022, the cause of death is shown cardiac raspatory arrest and septic shock. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned J.J. Board has rejected the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that the release of the petitioner would expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and he would come in association with the known criminals, if the petitioner released on bail. The same order has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court and dismissed the appeal while there is nothing adverse against the petitioner in Social Investigation Report. 6. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 7. The petitioner is juvenile and his Social Investigation Report is also on record, which is Annexure-2 of this Criminal Revision. In the Social Investigation Report of the juvenile, it is shown that the relations of the petitioner-CCL with his family members is cordial and no bad habit is shown. His attitude towards his friends, neighbors and classmate are shown normal. 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: -3- “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.” 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 Court below, whereby the bail application of the CCL has been rejected on the sole ground of gravity of the offence and the same needs interference. 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 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 -4- 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/-