Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 418 (PAT)

Md. Tabis v. State of Bihar

2014-04-07

JYOTI SARAN

body2014
ORDER Heard Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the state. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 28.1.2014 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 97 of 2013 by the Sessions Judge, Samastipur whereby the appellate Court while dismissing the appeal has confirmed the order dated 3.12.2013 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Samastipur in case arising from Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 255 of 2013 G.R. No. 2368 of 2013, Juvenile Trial No. 818 of 2013 registered for offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the prayer for bail has been rejected. 3. The allegation as set out in the F.I.R. charges this petitioner along with three others of robbing the informant by snatching his mobile, his money bag which contained the ATM Card, PAN Card, cash etc. and also his motorcycle. 4. The F.I.R. is against unknown and it is during the course of investigation that on the basis of a confessional statement made by one of the co-accused, that the name of this petitioner has transpired and not only has he been identified in the T.I. Parade rather the robbed motorcycle is also stated to have been recovered from his house. 5. Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has with reference to the provisions underlying Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) as well as the judgment of this Court reported in 2012(2)PLJR 821 has stated that the mandate of law requires the juvenile to be released on bail and it is only in exceptional circumstances where the forum concerned is of the opinion that his release would result in his return to the association of antisocial elements that it can be refused. He thus endeavoured to submit that in a case of juvenile the gravity of offence has got no connection. He has further submitted that although the Juvenile Justice Board has tried to bring the matter within the exception of the provision underlying Section 12 of the Act but the appellate Court even while affirming the order has gone into the merits of the allegations which is not in consonance with the statutory requirements. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. 7. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. 7. The mandate of law as provided under Section 12 of the Act cannot be contested and even if the considerations hallmarking a prayer for bail made by a juvenile is to be tested on the yardsticks provided under the said provisions, yet the discretion exercised by the Courts cannot be interfered with lightly by a superior Court. It is not only the impression gathered by the forum concerned that the release of the juvenile is likely in his return to the association of criminals or to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger rather it is also to be seen whether his release would defeat the ends of justice. Thus even if the wordings of the appellate Court is such as to have entered into the gravity of the offence but the intendment seen is on the anvil of whether the ends of justice would be defeated and to that extent no fault can be found in the order of the appellate Court. 8. However, taking into consideration the circumstances existing in the matter leading to the impugned orders as also taking into consideration that the petitioner is a boy of clean antecedent, let the petitioner namely, Md. Tabis be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Samastipur in connection with Juvenile Trial No. 818 of 2013 arising from Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 255 of 2013 subject to the following conditions:— (a) That the father of the petitioner shall ensure the presence of the petitioner on the 1st working day of each month before the Juvenile Justice Board, Samastipur, as a confirmation of his good conduct and also to ensure that the petitioner does not get involved in any further case of criminal nature and shall continue to do so until the conclusion of the trial/Inquiry. (b) The father of the petitioner shall also ensure the representation of the petitioner during the entire course of trial/Inquiry. (c) Any violation of the conditions aforementioned, would entitle the Juvenile Justice Board, Samastipur, to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner and take him into custody. 9. In result the orders impugned are set aside. This criminal revision application is allowed. ?