Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 715 (JHR)

Ragious Bara v. State Of Jharkhand

2007-09-06

DILIP KUMAR SINHA

body2007
ORDER D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The Cr. Rev. No. 798 of 2006 has been preferred by the informant/ petitioner Ragious Bara for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.6.2006 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board Ranchi in. G.R. No. 1451 of 2005 arising out of Khelari P.S. Case No. 33 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the opposite party No. 2 Chhotu @ Sandeep Kr. Singh was declared Juvenile after due enquiry under Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2000. 2. On the other hand, Chhotu @ Sandeep Kr. Singh is petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 132 of 2007 a Juvenile declared by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi, has preferred revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2000 for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.1.2007 passed by the Judicial Commissioner Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 184 of 2006 whereby and whereunder his appeal for bail preferred under Section 52 of the said Act was rejected affirming the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board Ranchi under Section 12 of the Act. 3. Though the relief claimed in both the Cr. Revisions are different, as presented by the respective petitioners against each other but the cause of action arose from the common Khelari P.S. case No. 33 of 2005, registered on 7.5.2005 on the Fardbeyan of the informant/petitioner, Ragious Bara. The informant narrated that he was an employee of C.C.L., Khelari living in the quarter of C.C.L. at Dakra with the members of his family. As usual when he returned back in the evening of 6.5.2005 he learnt that his youngest son Rupen Bipul Bara( since deceased) aged about 19 years had been out for walk as usual. He further narrated that while he was about to retire in the night on the bed with the members of his family, he received telephone call from an unknown person that his youngest son had sustained gun shot injury. His middle son Ritesh Fransis Bara with his friend Saurav Ghosh proceeded in search of his injured brother but to no avail and at about TO clock in the same night, on instruction, when he attended the telephone call, he came to learn that his brother Rupen Bipul Bara was dead. His middle son Ritesh Fransis Bara with his friend Saurav Ghosh proceeded in search of his injured brother but to no avail and at about TO clock in the same night, on instruction, when he attended the telephone call, he came to learn that his brother Rupen Bipul Bara was dead. Upon such information Ritesh Fransis Bara proceeded with his friend Saurav Ghosh and brought the dead body of his brother Rupen Bipul Bara in a Marshal Jeep, Though the informant could not suspect the complicity of any of the accused at initial stage but he expressed that his son was shot dead by some unknown culprit at Dakra. The case was instituted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act against unknown on 7.5.2005 at about 9 hours. 4. The petitioner/informant Ragious Bara assailed the impugned order dated 14.6.2006 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi on the ground that during course (If investigation the opposite party No. 2 Chhotu @ Sandeep Kr. Singh, who is the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 132 of 2007, was arrested and he confessed his gulit before the police. During such confession he disclosed his age to be 18 years and admitted that he with the help of co- accused Ranjeet Singh and Ranjn Singh committed murder of the son of the informant/petitioner and pursuant to such confessional statement blood stained bed, floor and wall of the room of Ranjeet Singh and Ranjan Singh were spotted. 5. According to the informant/ petitioner, enquiry was conducted by the Board on the claim of the opposite party No. 2 Chhotu @ Sandeep Kr. Singh under Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Gate and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 in which he intervened and filed objection petition that at the relevant time of occurrence the accused/opposite party No. 2 Chhotu @ Sandeep Kr. Singh was quite major above 18 years of age and he was a private driver by occupation. He had placed the voter list of area bearing the name of the accused Chhotu @ Sandeep Kr. Singh with his age mentioned as 20 years. 6. Singh was quite major above 18 years of age and he was a private driver by occupation. He had placed the voter list of area bearing the name of the accused Chhotu @ Sandeep Kr. Singh with his age mentioned as 20 years. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the opposite party No. 2 was produced before the Medical Board and his age was assessed 21 years by the Board but this fact could not be considered by the Juvenile Justice Board and the opposite party No. 2 was declared Juvenile against settled principle of law only on the ground that he was student of Class IX of Janta High School, Khelari and his age was recorded in the school admission register as 2.5. 1990. 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Opposite party No. 2 vehemently opposed the contention and emphatically submitted that among. all the documents produced on behalf of the contesting parties date of birth recorded in the school admission register or the certificate issued by the school examination Board containing the age of the student shall prevail over any other documents in view of the propositions of the High Courts and the Apex Court in Catena of decisions. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Chhotu @ Sandeep Kr. Singh in Cr. Rev. No. 132 of 2007 submitted that inspite of the declaration of the petitioner Juvenile by the competent court, he has been denied bail under Section 12 as well as under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 by the J.J. Board and court of appeal respectively ignoring the mandatory provisions of law as contained in Section 12 of the said Act. The courts below in succession perhaps lost sight of the fact that bail of a juvenile is a rule whereas rejection is exception. Statute was enacted to provide for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles under 18 years of age. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-opposite party in Cr.Rev. Statute was enacted to provide for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles under 18 years of age. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-opposite party in Cr.Rev. No. 132 of 2007 opposing the bail of the petitioner Chhotu @ Sandeep Kumar Singh on the ground as enumerated in paragraph-14 that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi by his letter No. 456 dated 17.2.2006 directed the Officer-in Charge of Khelari police station to make over the charge of the investigation of the case to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID Jharkhand and accordingly it was made over to the concerned for thorough investigation of the case and for that it would not be proper to release the petitioner, Chhotu @ Sandeep Kumar Singh on bail under Section 53 of the said Act. 10. So far as the relief as claimed in Cr. No. 798 of 2006 for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.6.2006 passed by the Principal Magistrate, J.J.B Ranchi is concerned, having gone through the impugned order I find that the evidence adduced on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 Chhotu @ Sandeep Kumar Singh is well discussed. I further find that P.W.3 Anirudh Singh, who is the In- charge, Principal of Government Middle School Dakra, testified before the Board that he had recorded the admission of the O.P. No. 2 Chhotu @ Sandeep Kr. Singh son of Sri. Mangal Singh in the school admission register on 10.2.1996 at serial No. 226 with the date of birth mentioned as 2.5.1990. He further testified that Sandeep Kumar Singh had taken his admission in the school in Class I and studied there up to Class VIII. The witness identified his signature on the admission register which was marked as Ext. 1. According to the report, of the Medical Board, the age of the opposite party No. 2 was assessed as 21 years and the voter list disclosed his age as 20 years. The Principal Magistrate J.J. Board came to the finding after due enquiry that opposite party No. 2 was minor and to quote: From perusal of the records it appears that date of occurrence of this case is 6.5.2005. The Principal Magistrate J.J. Board came to the finding after due enquiry that opposite party No. 2 was minor and to quote: From perusal of the records it appears that date of occurrence of this case is 6.5.2005. If the calculation is done from the date of occurrence then as per school certificate his age comes approximately 15 years and as per the medical report his age comes approximately 20 years and as per certified copy of voter list his age comes approximately 20 years. It is settled principal that school certificate will prevail over all other documents. From the corroboration of the facts which is available on record it can be said that at the time of the occurrence the petitioner was minor. Hence the said petitioner is hereby declared Juvenile under the JJ. Act. 11. From perusal of the impugned order I do not find any illegality or irregularity therein to call for interference and hence Cr.Rev. No. 798 of 2006 is dismissed and the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board Ranchi in G.R. No. 1451 of 2005 stands affirmed. 12. So far as Cr. Rev. No. 132 of 2007 preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 by the petitioner Chhotu @ Sandeep Kumar Singh for his bail is concerned, I find that neither the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi vide order dated 27.7.2006 nor the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 184 of 2006 could appreciate the provision of the Act in its right perspective. The Act, which has been brought about for the care, protection and rehabilitation of the juveniles below 18 years of age, is a beneficial legislation for the juveniles in conflict with law. Section 12 of the Act is specific that on arrestation of a juvenile, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that release shall likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. I find from the impugned orders that the courts below failed to disclose the specific grounds for refusal of the bail of the petitioner either under Section 12 or under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children )Act, 2000. It could not be explained as to under what manner the release of the petitioner would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger or his release would defect the ends of justice. The fact cannot be lost sight that case-under Section 302/34 IPC was instituted against unknown and no material was brought about on the record so far except confessional statement of the petitioner before the police In absence of prima facie direct evidence against the petitioner it would not be proper to detain him in remand him during the pendency of the enquiry, hence the petitioner, Chhotu @ Sandeep Kumar Singh(in Cr. Rev. No. 132 of 2007) is directed to be released on executing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi in G.R. No. 1451 of 2005 arising out of Khelari P.S. case No. 33 of 2005 with the condition that the parents would be the bailors who would take care of him and produce him before the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi on first Monday of each succeding month, failing to which Juvenile Justice Board would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders. The order impugned dated 19.1.2007 passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 184 of 2006 as also the order impugned dated 27.7.2006 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in G.R. No. 1451 of 2005 are accordingly set aside and the Cr.Rev. No. 132 of 2007 is allowed.