Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 696 (JHR)

Aswani Kumar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-07-08

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the defect, as pointed out by the office, is not on the part of the petitioner but the defect is in the order of the lower appellate court wherein the date of the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board has wrongly been recorded as 17.05.2008 instead of 17.03.2008. Learned Counsel prays that the defect may be ignored. 2. Considering the facts explained, the defect is ignored. 3. The instant revision application is directed against the order dated 04.06.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2008 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi refusing the petitioners prayer for bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, was dismissed. 4. The petitioner was arrested for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)(A), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and since he was found to be a juvenile, he was remanded after his arrest to the remand home. The petitioners prayer for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, was rejected and thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge which was also dismissed by the impugned order and hence, this revision application. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the petitioners prayer for bail both by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the Sessions Judge, is totally against the spirit of law and they have not offered adequate grounds for rejection of the prayer for bail. Learned Counsel explains that the Juvenile Justice Act is a special Act under which the juveniles are entitled for bail irrespective of the nature or gravity of offence and the only circumstance under which prayer for bail can be refused is that the release of the juvenile may bring him in association with known criminals and that the release would frustrate the ends of justice. Learned Counsel adds that in the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as of the Juvenile Justice Board, neither of these exceptional circumstances have been indicated. 6. Learned Counsel adds that in the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as of the Juvenile Justice Board, neither of these exceptional circumstances have been indicated. 6. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer on the ground that the rejection of the prayer for bail was made on the basis of the fact that the petitioner has criminal antecedents since earlier also he was involved in a case registered under Sections 307, 387, 326, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As observed by the Sessions Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board, the petitioner has already developed company of anti social elements and his release is very much likely to bring him in association with his old associates. 7. It appears that the Juvenile Justice Board had called for a report from the Probationary Officer regarding antecedents and other aspects of the petitioner. The report submitted by the Probationary Officer indicates that the social status of the family of the petitioner appears to be satisfactory and that he was arrested while traveling in a bus on the suspicion that he was an associate of other co-accused persons who were apprehended while in possession of fire arms. The report also mentions that the parents of the petitioner are willing to undertake the custody of the petitioner and to keep proper care and protection of the petitioner under their control. 8. From the perusal of the impugned order of the Juvenile Justice Board as also that of the Sessions Judge, it appears that the prayer of the petitioner was rejected merely on consideration that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and therefore, there was every possibility of the petitioner to come in association with other known criminals with whom he had developed acquaintance in the past. There is no firm basis for arriving on such a conclusion. Both the Juvenile Justice Board and the Sessions Court appear to have ignored the report of the Probationary Officer wherein the parents of the petitioner had offered the custody of the petitioner and to keep him under proper care and protection under their control. There is no firm basis for arriving on such a conclusion. Both the Juvenile Justice Board and the Sessions Court appear to have ignored the report of the Probationary Officer wherein the parents of the petitioner had offered the custody of the petitioner and to keep him under proper care and protection under their control. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial piece of legislation which offers special privilege to juveniles, in conflict with law, in the matter of grant of bail and the only exception under which the bail can be refused is that the release of the juvenile may bring him in association with other known criminals and that the release would result in frustrating the ends of justice but neither of these circumstances have been satisfactorily indicated either by the Sessions Judge or by the Juvenile Justice Board. No reference has been made to the report of the Probationary Officer or to the offer of the petitioners parents to take custody of the petitioner under their protective control. 9. In the facts and circumstances, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, the impugned order of both the Juvenile Justice Board and also of the Sessions Judge is hereby set aside. 10. The petitioner is directed to be released from custody on his furnishing 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, Palamau in connection with Sadar Town P.S. Case No. 440 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1548 of 2007 subject to the condition that the father of the petitioner shall be one of the sureties and he shall also execute an undertaking to take custody of the petitioner and to maintain him with proper care and protection under his control and also to produce him before the Juvenile Justice Board at the trial, on the dates fixed till the conclusion of trial. 11. This revision application is accordingly disposed of.