Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 958 (JHR)

Nageshwar Nag v. State of Jharkhand

2009-07-13

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT Heard the parties. Both the revision applications arise out of one occurrence, for which, Nageshwar Nag is an accused. Cr. Rev. No. 374 of 2009 arises out of Sisai P.S. Case No. 106 of 2008 in connection with G.R. No. 632 of 2008 registered under Sections 25 (1-b) a/26/35 of the Arms Act and Cr. Rev. No. 378 of 2009 arises out of Sisai P.S. Case No. 105 of 2008 in connection with G.R. No. 631 of 2008 registered under Section 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code. In Cr. Rev. No. 378 of 2009, an F.I.R. was lodged by one Savita Devi, stating therein that she runs a Line Hotel on national highway at Rerwa, where a dacoity was committed. She stated that in the night of 20/21-07.2008, the dacoits looted the household articles at the point of pistol. The F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that subsequently a raid was made by police and some looted articles were seized from the house of one Laldeo Sahu of Village-Kuda Damar, where this petitioner namely Nageshwar Nag was staying in a room and from his room some part of looted articles were recovered and the petitioner was also arrested with one loaded country made pistol alongwith two live cartridges. During investigation, it has also found that the main accused in the case is his brother-in-law, namely, Parmeshwar Sahu, who is an absconder and accused in many cases. Considering the aforesaid fact, although the petitioner was found a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected, vide order dated 06.09.2008, since, the condition of the petitioner’s house was not conducive and he was under the influence of his brother-in-law, Parmeshwar Sahu, who was an absconder accused. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla as well as by the District and Sessions Judge, Gumla in both the cases. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner, except these two cases, which arises from the same occurrence. Moreover, the petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2008 i.e. for more than one year. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner, except these two cases, which arises from the same occurrence. Moreover, the petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2008 i.e. for more than one year. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his family environment is not good, but there is no case pending against his parents. The only person, who is involved in the criminal case is, his brother-in-law, Parmeshwar Sahu, who does not live in his house and the petitioner is a student, who passed his matriculation examination in Division, which appears from Annexure 2, filed in the revision application and in that view of the matter, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the trial court and the continued custody of the juvenile is bad in law and fit to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner’s prayer for bail was not rejected due to the serious allegation against him, but only because the social investigation report was not good. The Social Investigation reported that there is no discipline in the petitioner’s house and he may fall back under the influence of his brother-in-law, Parmeshwar Sahu and that was the main cause of rejection of his bail and that continues even today. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the petitioner is in custody since the last more than one year and the only allegation against him is that he is under the influence of his brother-in-law, Parmeshwar Sahu, who is a criminal and also an absconder. Also, it appears from the Annexure 2 that the petitioner is a student and he had appeared in the matriculation examination. The mark sheet of the matriculation examination of the petitioner is filed as Annexure 3, which shows that he obtained the 2nd Division in his matriculation examination and he wants to continue his education. The father of the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that he is ready to take the custody of the juvenile and he ensures that he will continue his education and he will not allow him to fall under the influence of his brother-in-law again. The father of the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that he is ready to take the custody of the juvenile and he ensures that he will continue his education and he will not allow him to fall under the influence of his brother-in-law again. The Social Investigation Report filed by the Probation Officer, Gumla shows that the juvenile has got no bad habits and his character is good. In that view of the matter, since, the juvenile is in custody for more than one year and his parents want to keep him under their care and custody so that he will continue his own education and in the interest of the juvenile, it will be better to send him back to his house to his parents and let him continue his education. Accordingly, the juvenile, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection with Sisai P.S. Case No. 106 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 632 of 2008 and Sisai P.S. Case No. 105 of 2008 in connection with G.R. 4 No. 631 of 2008, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be his father, who will file an undertaking that he will keep him (the juvenile) under his care and custody and he will see that the juvenile will continue his further education of intermediate. He will also ensure that he would not again go under the influence of his brother-in-law. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in both the criminal cases is hereby allowed and the order of refusal passed in Cr. Rev. No. 378 of 2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Cr. Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 18.03.2009 and that of by Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla Sisai P.S. Case No. 105 of 2008 in connection with G.R. No. 631 of 2008 dated 10.02.2009 are set aside. Similarly, order refusing bail of the petitioner passed in Cr. Rev. No. 374 of 2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Cr. Appeal No. 32 of 2008 dated 24.09.2008 and that of by Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection with Sisai P.S. Case No. 106 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 632 of 2008 dated 06.09.2008 are set aside. Similarly, order refusing bail of the petitioner passed in Cr. Rev. No. 374 of 2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Cr. Appeal No. 32 of 2008 dated 24.09.2008 and that of by Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection with Sisai P.S. Case No. 106 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 632 of 2008 dated 06.09.2008 are set aside. Both the applications are accordingly allowed.