Satyam Kumar Pathak @ Satyam Pathak v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1169 of 2022 Satyam Kumar Pathak @ Satyam Pathak --- --- Petitioner The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party Versus CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashishtha, Spl. P.P. ….... 05/11.05.2023 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
Legal Reasoning
and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 16.09.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2022 by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV cum Special Judge (POCSO), Ranchi whereby the order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board Ranchi rejecting the bail application of this petitioner in connection with Airport P.S. Case No. 18 of 2021 for the offence under section 302/120B/34 of the I.P.C and Section 27 of the Arms Act has been affirmed. 3. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that the gist of the allegations as set out in the F.I.R is that he along with co-accused persons had conspired to kill the husband of the informant. It has further been pointed out that this petitioner is a child in conflict with law and is not named in the F.I.R and no specific role has been attributed against him. Further, it has been pointed out that his name has appeared on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and this petitioner is in jail since 25.05.2021 and there is no criminal history against this petitioner and therefore he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contention raised by the petitioner but he did not controvert the fact that co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail and this petitioner is a juvenile, a child in conflict with law, who is in jail since 25.05.2021. However, he has submitted that since the petitioner is an accused for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C., he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. -2- 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, perused the record. 6. Petitioner is a child in conflict with law, who is in jail custody since 25.05.2021. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R nor any specific overt act has been attributed against him. Further it appears that his name has appeared in this case on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused and the co-accused, who are named in the F.I.R have been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, such as Vinod Gope @ Binu Gope in B.A. No. 495 of 2022 dated 14.09.2022; Niku Kumar Gupta in B.A. No. 11025 of 2021 dated 12.01.2022; Suraj Raj @ Sunny in B.A. No. 1345 of 2022 dated 07.04.2022; Sudhir Kumar Choudhary in B.A. No. 11129 of 2021 dated 30.11.2021; Shubham Gope @ Shubham Kumar @ Golu in B.A. No. 8717 of 2022 dated 28.09.2022; Krishna in Cr. Revision No. 559 of 2022 dated 26.08.2022; Aman Kumar Verma in B.A. No. 12041 of 2021 dated 02.12.2021; Krishna Kumar @ Jai Singh in B.A. No. 10380 of 2021; Rahul Gope and Vishal Singh @ Vishal Kumar Singh in B.A. No. 11781 of 2021 dated 27.11.2021 and Mukesh Chandrawansi in B.A. No. 7633 of 2022 dated 03.08.2022. Further, it has been pointed out from the impugned order of the lower appellate court dated 16.09.2022 that from the social investigation report it appears that this appellant was a student of Class- X and due to lack of proper guardianship and care he is alleged to have involved in such type of activities. It is found that since the co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail, therefore further detention of the petitioner in judicial custody would definitely expose to mental, moral, physical and psychological danger to his life. Further, it is also found that in the absence of any criminal history, this petitioner is not likely to come in association of known criminals and therefore, in the ends of justice, one opportunity must be given to him to come to the main stream of the society. 7. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner named above is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi in connection with G.R. Case No. 2225 of 2021 arising out of Airport P.S. Case No. 18 of 2021(s), subject to the -3- condition as set out under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C and with further subject to the conditions, inter alia as under: i. The father of the petitioner will be one of the bailers; ii. The father of the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will take proper care and attention of the child and he will admit him in a school for further studies; iii. The Secretary, DLSA is directed to take proper steps for counselling of the child and also facilitate him to get him admitted in a school and also to ensure that he properly attends the school and continue with his studies with the help of Legal cum Probation officer. iv. Any other condition or conditions as the learned Court below may deem it fit and proper in the interest of child. v. Appellant will cooperate in the trial of this case, which is going on and he will remain present on each and every date fixed in this case, failing which, learned court below will pass appropriate order for cancellation of his bail. 8. Accordingly, this criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.09.2022 passed in Criminal appeal No. 105 of 2022 by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV cum Spl. Judge, POCSO, Ranchi affirming the order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi in connection with G.R. Case No. 2225 of 2021 arising out of Airport P.S. Case No. 18 of 2021(S) is set aside. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi, the Judicial Commissioner cum Chairman, DLSA, Ranchi and the Deputy Commissioner cum Vice Chairman, DLSA, Ranchi through FAX to ensure that the Secretary, DLSA complies the direction in letter and spirit as passed by this Court without any hindrances and obstacles. (Navneet Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty