Aryan Kumar Singh @ Sahil through its natural guardian father Mukesh Kumar Singh The v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 835 of 2022 Aryan Kumar Singh @ Sahil through its natural guardian father Mukesh Kumar Singh The State of Jharkhand Versus ….... --- --- Appellant --- --- Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. For the State 05/05.05.2023 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
Legal Reasoning
and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the order 18.04.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 558 of 2022 by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner –IV cum Special Judge (POCSO) cum Children Court, Ranchi in connection with Children Case No. 03 of 2021 arising out of Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 62 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 1031 of 2020 registered under Section 302,201,34 of the I.P.C. pending in the court of Additional Judicial Commissioner –IV cum Special Judge (POCSO) cum Children Court, Ranchi. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that appellant is a child in conflict with law aged about 16 years at the time of commission of the offence. The gist of the allegation as disclosed in the F.I.R is that the co-accused persons had killed the brother of the informant but there is no whisper about this petitioner either by disclosing the name or by stating any kind of overt act in the commission of the alleged offence and he is not named in the F.I.R. His name has appeared in this case on the basis of the confessional statement of the co accused Sumit Kumar Verma and Dibyansh Srivastava. It is submitted that Dibyansh Srivastava is also a child in conflict with law and he is said to have been enlarged on bail vide order dated 22.11.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 285 of 2021. 4. It is further pointed out that the very significant evidence which has been collected during the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer was the CCTV and from the CCTV footage this petitioner has not been identified and therefore there is no iota of evidence about involvement of this petitioner in the commission of offence as evident in para 36 of the case diary, which is identification of the culprits from the -2- CCTV footage where the name of the appellant does not appear. Further, it has been pointed out that this appellant is in jail since 06.02.2020 and there is nothing adverse in the social investigation report and therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State did not controvert this fact that this appellant being a child in conflict with law has not been named in the F.I.R and there is no whisper of any overt act in the F.I.R but his has name appeared on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused. Learned A.P.P. also did not controvert the fact that the evidence from the CCTV footage as evident from para 36 of the case diary, the name of two persons have been identified namely Dibyansh @ Laden and another was Sumit Kumar Verma and both have been enlarged on bail. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case. 7. This appellant is a child in conflict with law who is in the age group of 16-18 years and his case is pending in the concerned Children Court. The appellant is neither named in the F.I.R nor any whisper about his involvement in the commission of offence. The CCTV footage of the place of occurrence has been obtained by the investigating agency during course of the investigation in which appellant has not been identified as evident from para 36 of the case diary and the witness who has identified the culprits in the CCTV is Ricky Verma. It has further been found from the scanned copy of the LCR that the trial of the case has commenced and three of the witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution namely P.W.1-Ricky @ Aashish Verma; P.W.2- Bablu Kumar Soni and P.W.3-Gopal Ram. From perusal of the deposition of the aforesaid witness P.W.1-Ricky @ Aashish Verma, it appears that he was the person who identified the culprits in the CCTV footage and also did not utter a single word about the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence. The rest two witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 have been declared hostile. From the social investigation report it is found that there is no adverse report against this appellant and there is no criminal history against him and therefore, if the appellant is released on bail, the possibility of his coming into association of any known criminal is very remote. Further, since the other co-accused -3- persons have been enlarged on bail, further detention of this appellant would definitely expose him to mental, moral, physical and psychological danger to his life. 8. It is further found that the Legal cum Probation Officer, Ranchi has opined that one opportunity may be afforded to the appellant in order to come into the main stream of the society because there is no criminal antecedent against this appellant and he wanted to continue his studies but due to lack of guardianship care by the guardian, he is alleged to have been involved in such time of occurrence. Further, it has also come in the social investigation report that the appellant child is interested to change his behavior and to become good member of the society and also wants to support his family to livelihood and uplift his standard of living as the family of the appellant comes under the category of lower income class. 9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant 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 Additional Judicial Commissioner –IV-cum –Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi in connection with Misc. Criminal Application No. 558 of 2022 arising out of Children Case No. 03 of 2021 corresponding to Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 62 of 2020 and G.R. No. 1031 of 2020, subject to the 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. -4- 10. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.04.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 558 of 2022 by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner –IV cum Special Judge (POCSO) cum Children Court, Ranchi in connection with Children Case No. 03 of 2021 arising out of Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 62 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 1031 of 2020 is set aside. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi, the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi 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