Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1724 (PAT)

Amana Raj @ Vikki Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2007-11-05

CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 28th August 2007 of the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya in Criminal Appeal (Juvenile) No. a105 of 2007 whereby the appeal has been dismissed by way of rejecting petitioners prayer for bail on the ground that the release of the petitioner will bring him in association with the criminals, on consideration of the materials available in the case diary. 2. Before deciding this instant revision application, I would like to refer to the antecedents of the case. 3. It is not disputed at the Bar that firstly when the petitioner was arrested in the case u/s. 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, presuming the petitioner a minor, referred the case of the petitioner to the Juvenile Justice Board, Magadh Division, Gaya and his case was dealt with under the Juvenile Case No. 233(N) of 2006. It so happened that after the case of the petitioner was referred to the Juvenile Board as done by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, an enquiry u/s. 14 of the Juvenile Justice Act was initiated for ascertaining the actual age of the petitioner on the date of occurrence i.e. 11th January 2006. The enquiry was completed and vide order dated 30.07.2007 the Juvenile Justice Board declared the age of the petitioner as 17 years on the date of occurrence i.e. 11.01.2006 under the Juvenile Justice Case No. 93(M) of 2007 as numbered for the year 2007. 4. But it had happened that before the enquiry for finding out the actual age of the petitioner could have been completed, the petitioner had filed a bail petition before the Juvenile Justice Board which had been earlier rejected by the Board vide its order dated 31.03.2006 on the ground that in view of seriousness of offence, the release of the petitioner will defeat the ends of justice. Against the order dated 31.03.2006 of the Juvenile Justice Board the petitioner had earlier filed Cri. Against the order dated 31.03.2006 of the Juvenile Justice Board the petitioner had earlier filed Cri. Appeal (Juvenile) No. 165 of 2006 before the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya but the same was dismissed by order dated 2.05.2006 and the learned Sessions Judge discussing the materials in several paragraphs of the case diary upheld the rejection of the bail prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the appellant appeared to have been in the company of bad elements and in case of release, the petitioner may again fall into the company of bad elements and hard core criminals. It was against that order that the petitioner had earlier field Cri.Revn. No. 722 of 2006 before this Court which was dismissed by this Court vide this Courts order dated 28.08.2006 with the following findings ; "Petitioner is an accused for offence u/s. 366 and 364(A) IPC. The petitioner was an associate of the victim boy. Learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned Sessions Judge has discussed various paragraphs of the case diary indicating that the petitioner, while going with the victim for playing cricket, kidnapped the victim with the help of others and he also handed over the victim to another group of criminals for the purpose of obtaining ransom and subsequently when the victim was recovered and that the petitioner was seen verifying about the victim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the learned Courts below have rightly rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that if released, the petitioner will come in company of criminals. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order. The revision application has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed" 5. It was after the dismissal of the bail prayer of the petitioner upto this Court in the aforesaid manner that the enquiry about the actual age of the petitioner was complete by the Juvenile Justice Board and vide its order dated 30.07.2007, the Juvenile Justice Board held that the age of the petitioner was 17 years on the date of occurrence i.e. 11.1.2006. It was after the declaration of the age of the petitioner on the day of occurrence as done by the Juvenile Justice Board that the petitioner again filed a fresh bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board but it was again dismissed by the Board, vide its order dated 30th July 2007 on similar ground as was done under petitioners earlier bail petition. The petitioner again preferred revision before the Sessions Judge under Cri. Appeal (Juvenile) No. 105 of 2007. But the learned Sessions Judge again discussed various paragraphs of the case diary and again came to the same finding that the release of the petitioner will bring him in association with the criminals and that after dismissal of the criminal appeal, the petitioner has filed the instant subsequent revision praying for bail. 6. On perusal of the record, i find that the matters, facts and circumstances are altogether similar and same. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier while the bail prayer of the petitioner was rejected by this Court under Cri. Rev. No. 722 of 2006 the enquiry about the actual age of the petitioner had not been completed by the Juvenile Justice Board and now it has been completed holding the petitioners age 17 (seventeen) years on the day of occurrence. 8. Mr. S.N.Prasad, learned A.P.P. submitted that earlier when the petitioners prayer for bail was rejected under Cri. Revn. No. 722 of 2006 the petitioner was already treated as minor at that time because the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had already referred the case of the petitioner to the Juvenile Justice Board which had dealt with the bail application rejecting the bail prayer of the petitioner and which rejection was upheld upto this Court under earlier Cri.Revn. No. 722 of 2006 on the grounds as detailed in this Courts order dated 28.08.2006 as passed in that revision (Cri.Revn. No. 722 of 2006). The learned A.P.P. continued to submit that the petitioner was never treated as a major one and his earlier bail application was also disposed of considering him as a minor one and presently the position is same, the only difference being that at the time when the bail application was rejected earlier, the exact age of the petitioner was not found and now it has been established as 17 (seventeen) years. But at the time of bail proceedings, the petitioner was treated as a minor one. 9. Thus herein both sides, I find that there has not been any change of circumstance or the status of the petitioner-accused from the situation when the rejection of bail prayer of the petitioner was upheld by this Court under this Courts order dated 28.08.2006, as passed under earlier revision (Cri. Revn. No. 722 of 2006). Therefore, I fail to find any merit in this application. 10. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner argued that presently the petitioner is not a minor and he has exceeded the age of 18 (eighteen) years but that does not make any difference in continuation of the proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board which contains the provisions for continuation of the proceedings in such case. 11. Thus hearing I fail to find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order. The revision application has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed.