Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 204 (JHR)

Umesh Mistry v. State of Jharkhand

2011-03-15

DILIP KUMAR SINHA

body2011
ORDER D.K. Sinha, J. 1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the judgment recorded by the Sessions Judge, Dumka in Criminal Misc. Appeal No. 110 of 2010 by which the prayer for bail of the Petitioner in conflict with law rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Dumka was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. 2. The Petitioner was admittedly a juvenile, who was arrested in Dumka (T) P.S. Case No. 181 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 1157 of 2009 for alleged offence including under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code now pending enquiry No. 104 of 2010 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Dumka. 3. The prosecution story in short was that when the female inmates of the house of the informant arrived at the tube-well in the morning of 6.9.2009 for fetching water, there held altercation between the parties and in the same transaction it was alleged that Shubhash Mistri arrived, who commanded the other assailants to assault them. Pursuant to such command, the accused persons about nine in number returned back with various weapons in their hands, and it was alleged against the Petitioner Umesh Mistry that he was holding a knife in his hand. All went there at the place of occurrence near the tube-well and started assaulting the informant and his son Rajendra Sharma, Rajendra Sharma fell down after sustaining various injuries on his person. He was immediately removed to the Sadar Hospital Dumka where he was declared brought dead. The case was instituted against 10 named accused persons for the alleged offence under Sections 147/148/149/302/323/324 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The main contention of the Petitioner is that though he is in custody since 6.9.2009 and admittedly he was a juvenile but his prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the Sessions Judge only on the ground of the gravity of the alleged offence, though no specific overtact was attributed against the Petitioner except that he was the member of- unlawful assembly. His case does not come within the exception clause of Section 12 of the Act wherein in certain situations have been illustrated wherein bail of a juvenile can be refused. His case does not come within the exception clause of Section 12 of the Act wherein in certain situations have been illustrated wherein bail of a juvenile can be refused. In the instant case, without assigning the reason it has been held by the Sessions Judge that the release of the Petitioner would likely to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and would defeat the ends of justice. 5. In the facts and circumstances, I find substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioner that the Sessions Judge failed to assign any cogent reason as to how the case of the Petitioner comes within the exception clause of Section 12 of the Act for the refusal of his bail. It is settled law that the bail of a juvenile is a Rule but the refusal is exception and to my view the case of the Petitioner does not come within the exception clause so as to deny his statutory right of bail. 6. In the circumstances, the Petitioner-Umesh Mistry is directed to be released on executing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Dumka in connection with Dumka (T) P.S. Case No. 181 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 1157 of 2009 with the conditions that mother and the maternal uncle of the Petitioner would be the bailers, who would take care of him and produce before the J.J. Board as and when required preferably in the 1st week of each month until conclusion of the enquiry or on any other date suggested by the Board in each month. 7. This Criminal Revision is allowed. Petition allowed.