Gladson Tudu … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.1612 of 2023 Gladson Tudu …. …Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …Opp. Party CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND -------- For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P. Order No. 05/ dated 22.02.2024 --------
Legal Reasoning
Learned Counsel Mr. Suraj Singh on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the State, learned A.P.P. are present. 2. The instant Cr. Revision is directed against the Judgment/Order dated 02.12.2023 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Dumka in Cr. Misc. Appeal No. 18 of 2023 whereby the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal has affirmed the order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dumka in Gopikander P.S. Case No. 33 of 2022, corresponding to E.N.No.103/2023 (Juvenile Case No.02/2023) wherein the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected. 3. As per allegations made in the F.I.R. the informant had given the written information with the Police Station concerned with these allegations that his daughter was administered with poison by the petitioner who is CCL and belongs to his own village. He found his daughter unconscious although over the phone the CCL had informed him that his daughter was unconscious. His daughter was well on 05.11.2022 by 4 O’ clock of evening. He was called from his house. When he reached to the Doctor Bagjobara practitioner, the saline was being injected to his 2 daughter. She was unconscious and during that treatment his daughter died. On this written information the case crime No. 33 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 328/302 of I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner CCL herein. 4. In this case the investigation was conducted. In view of the inquest report of the deceased, the cause of death is shown appeared to be administering with poison to the deceased. 5. In para 4 of the case diary the informant has reiterated the averment made in the written information itself. 6. In para 6 of the case diary Kulin Soren who is the mother of victim also corroborated the prosecution story and also stated that when she reached there, the CCL was also fleeing away having seen them. 7. It is also further stated that the CCL had been talking with his daughter for last two years. His daughter was called from his house by the CCL and thereafter found her daughter unconscious who subsequently died. 8. In para 7 of the case diary Parmeshwar Hembrom also gave the same kind of statement. 9. In postmortem report of the deceased cause of death is shown poisoning. Viscera was also preserved. 10. In Social Investigation Report of the juvenile his attitude towards his family members, neighbours, friends, classmate and teacher as well is shown to be normal. CCL is told to have been studying in class X. As per opinion of the neighbours, the CCL is told to be diligent in study. It is also opined in the Social 3 Investigation Report that the child was having criminal antecedent also. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the criminal antecedent of one case is also shown of the petitioner yet the father who is guardian of the petitioner undertakes that he would keep vigil eye upon the child and he will control him from coming in society of bad elements. 12. It is also further submitted that there is no other cogent evidence against him in regard to commission of the alleged offence. 13. The learned A.P.P. opposed the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 14. It is the settled law that the bail application of a juvenile is
Decision
to be disposed of in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015 in which it is provided that ordinarily the bail application of a juvenile should be allowed except the three circumstances as shown in proviso of the said section. While disposing of the bail application of a juvenile, the gravity and nature of the offence cannot be taken into consideration rather it is the Social Investigation Report of the C.C.L. which is to be considered. 15. Herein the Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2000 is reproduced 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 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 4 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 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 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 the 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. 16. In view of the submissions made and the materials on record, it is found that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and in the chain of circumstantial evidence the last seen evidence is against the petitioner-juvenile with the deceased. There is no other evidence in corroboration thereof. 17. So far as the Social Investigation Report is concerned in the same though his attitude towards the classmate, teachers, friends and neighbours are shown normal yet one criminal antecedent is also there. 5 18. However, keeping in view the undertaking given by the guardian of the CCL and in view of the thorough Social Investigation Report of the juvenile, there is nothing on record that his release on bail would expose him to physical, psychological and moral danger. Accordingly, this Cr. Revision deserves to be allowed. 19. This Cr. Revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court is set aside. 20. In consequence thereof, the CCL is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) and two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dumka in connection with Gopikander P.S. Case No. 33 of 2022, corresponding to E.N. No. 103 of 2023 (Juvenile Case No.02 of 2023) on behalf of his guardian. In addition, the guardian of the juvenile would give an undertaking that he would keep vigil eye upon the CCL and would control him from coming in association of known criminals. P.K.S. (Subhash Chand, J.)