Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 592 (JHR)

Banti Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2015-05-06

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
ORDER : The sole petitioner Banti Sahu has preferred this revision application under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment dated 06.02.2014 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla in Cr. Appeal No.04 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for grant of bail, which was rejected by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla vide order dated 03.01.2014 in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.304 of 2013, has been affirmed. 2. On the basis of a written report of S.I., Gumla Police Station dated 29.08.2013 Gumla P.S. Case No.304 of 2013 was instituted under Sections 115/420/468/471/34 I.P.C. and also under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and Section 13 of U.P.A. Act. on the allegation that on the said date, the informant received a secret information that this petitioner was actively associated with P.L.F.I., an extremist organization and has been providing the said organization all ground level support including passing on action of the police to the extremists and terrorizing the local business community by throwing P.L.F.I. pamphlets at their places. The police, on the basis of the said petition, conducted raid in the house of the petitioner and recovered one mobile phone, P.L.F.I. letter pad, top up vouchers of mobile for which on inquiry he could not give any proper answer of keeping those incriminating articles. 3. It appears that during investigation, police obtained Call Details Report (C.D.R.) of the mobile used by the present petitioner whereupon the involvement of one Gulab Gope and his relationship with this petitioner was established and after investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against this petitioner and other accused persons. 3. It appears that during investigation, police obtained Call Details Report (C.D.R.) of the mobile used by the present petitioner whereupon the involvement of one Gulab Gope and his relationship with this petitioner was established and after investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against this petitioner and other accused persons. It further appears that the petitioner was declared as juvenile after following the procedure and the statute of the Act and Rules and thereafter a petition was filed on his behalf before Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla under Section 12 of the Act for grant of bail but the same was rejected by impugned order dated 03.01.2014 holding that the petitioner has connection with Naxal organization P.L.F.I. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla and that court vide order dated 06.02.2014 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of Juvenile Justice Board by which the prayer of bail of the juvenile petitioner was rejected holding as follows: “Before coming to any logical finding a brief look on the diary evidence will be just and proper. On consideration of Para 1,3,5,11,12,13,15,16 of the original diary as well as Para 10,32,33,34,35,44,64,65,71 I find that the appellant/juvenile has developed vast connection with the P.L.F.I. hard core member Gulab Gope. The call details report as per Para 35 of supplementary C.D. establishes that he is actively involved in anti social operation. Further from the Social Investigation Report it is quite discernable that the appellant carries a very negative in disciplined and violent nature and behavior and the court is of the view that if he is allowed to be released on bail, this may further bring him in association with other hard core criminals which may ruin his carrier and may further endanger his life and safety.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seriously contended that rejection of the prayer for bail of the petitioner was against the mandate of law and the observation of the court below that the release of the petitioner would invariably bring him in association with known or unknown criminals is clearly violation of the provision of Section 12 of the Act. It was also submitted that if an accused has been declared as juvenile then in that case irrespective of the nature of alleged offence, the court has to release the juvenile. It was also submitted that if an accused has been declared as juvenile then in that case irrespective of the nature of alleged offence, the court has to release the juvenile. Hence, the prayer is to release the petitioner on bail. Learned counsel further indicates that if the petitioner is released on bail, the father of the petitioner is ready to give an undertaking to take care of his son. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the State in support of the order impugned submitted that the allegation against this petitioner is serious in nature and his involvement has been established during investigation of the case and the call details report of the mobile of the petitioner clearly contemplates that the petitioner has close relation with extremist organization and also with known extremists. 6. Section 12 of the Act contains special provision for bail of juvenile in conflict with law and in the principles laid down, there is clear mandates that bail should be granted irrespective of the nature of alleged offence and only exception to the said provision or Rule is that if there appears reasonable ground to believe that the release is likely to bring him into association with known or known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice, the juvenile shall not be released. In the case at hand, the police during investigation has collected ample evidence against this petitioner in different Paragraphs of the original case diary as also in Paragraphs 10, 32, 35, 44, 64, 65 & 71 of the supplementary case diary. It further appears that in Paragraph 35 of the supplementary case diary, the call details report as well as the talk between this petitioner with one Sub Zonal Commander of P.L.F.I., Gulab Gope, has been given which clearly establishes the relationship of this petitioner with known extremist. It further appears that the report was also called for from the Probation Officer and from the Social Investigation Report, it appears that the petitioner carries very negative, in disciplined and violent nature and as such there is a sufficient ground to apprehend that the release of the petitioner would bring him in association of anti social elements and other criminals. It is no doubt that there is mandate to release the petitioner on bail irrespective of the offence committed by him and grant of bail is a Rule and refusal is an exception but in the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find it proper to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 7. With the aforesaid observations, this Cr. Revision application is dismissed.