Himanshu Oraon v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1514 of 2023 Himanshu Oraon Versus The State of Jharkhand -------- ..... … Petitioner …. …. Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Altamash Khan, Advocate : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P. -------- 05/18th April, 2024 1. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 18th October, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court refused to interfere with the order dated 13th September, 2023 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga in connection with Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No.12 of 2022 by which the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The brief facts leading to this criminal revision are that the informant/victim had given the written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that on 29th April, 2022, she had gone to the house of Mahli Oraon in between 8-9 o’ clock in night along with her two friends, namely, Manju and Riya to respond the call of nature at the distance of 100 feet from the marriage hall. The five unknown persons came there and began to drag the informant and her two friends as well, however, her both friends managed to flee away but the accused persons dragged her to the secluded place. Out of them, three managed to flee and the remaining two gang raped her. Ultimately both the accused criminally intimidated her not to disclose the said incident and left her. Hence, this F.I.R. was lodged. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner—CCL is Juvenile and his age is below 16 years. It is - 2 - further submitted that as per F.I.R. allegations, the role of committing rape has been attributed to the present petitioner and co-accused Dharma Tigga and both were identified during Test Identification Parade. It is also submitted that there is nothing adverse against him in the Social Investigation Report. The petitioner is languishing in jail since 2nd May, 2022. The learned J.J. Board and the learned appellate court did not consider the social investigation report of the petitioner while rejecting the bail application of the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that it was petitioner Himanshu Oraon and co-accused Dharma Tigga who raped the victim. The victim also supported the F.I.R. case in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well. Though there is nothing adverse against the petitioner in the social investigation report, yet there was lack of supervision of the guardian of the juvenile. In view of the above contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned J.J. Board which was affirmed by the learned appellate court. 5. 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 [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 - (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.” 6. Though the petitioner is alleged to have raped the victim along with co-accused Dharma Tigga, yet in the social investigation report nothing adverse is shown against him as the parameter for disposal of the bail application of a juvenile is altogether different to that of regular bail under Section 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is hereby allowed and the aforesaid orders are, hereby, quashed and set aside. 9. In consequence, thereof, the petitioner – CCL is directed to release on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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, Lohardaga in connection with Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No.12 of 2022, 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/Rashmi (Subhash Chand, J.)