Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 440 (PAT)

Raju Kumar S/o Ranjit Mahto v. State of Bihar

2023-04-07

ANSHUMAN

body2023
JUDGMENT : ANSHUMAN, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State and counsel for the informant are present. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 02.07.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2022 by 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, (Children’s Court), Sitamarhi whereby and whereunder the order refusing bail to the petitioner dated 08.03.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 505 of 2021 lodged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that from the content of the F.I.R. it transpires that this case has been filed against unknown accused persons. He further submits that the name of the petitioner has figured in this case in re-statement of the informant in which the informant has raised suspicion against 8 accused persons including the present petitioner. Counsel further submits that the present petitioner has been declared juvenile by order of J.J.B. dated 14.02.2022. Counsel further submits that when petitioner has filed for bail under Section 12 of the Act, bail petition has been rejected, subsequently challenge the said order for rejection of bail before 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, (Children’s Court), Sitamarhi then also his bail petition was rejected. He further submits that the age of the petitioner was ascertained as 15 years 7 months and 25 days and he is in remand home since 01.01.2022. Upon social investigation and social background report, it comes that the petitioner is in the association of local criminals and he is in conduct with persons who used to take drink and gamble and involved in gambling. It has also come that the atmosphere around the present juvenile requires to keep him in observation home. Counsel further submits that the father of the petitioner is ready to undertake that upon come out side from the observation home, he shall not keep his son in Bihar and he will keep out side the State. He also take personal care of his son. 4. Counsel for the State submits that initially case was filed under section 302 of the I.P.C. but subsequently charge has been submitted under Sections 302, 120B and 201/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 32B of SC/ST Act. It has also come that the present juvenile is also involved in other two criminal cases in addition to the present one. It has also come that the present juvenile is also involved in other two criminal cases in addition to the present one. 5. In the J.J. Act the presumption of innocence is always in favour of the juvenile. Equity is also in favour of the juvenile. 6. Here in the present case the father of the juvenile is ready to undertake also for the said juvenile, then in that case this Court is inclined to release the petitioner from observation home. 7. It is directed that the juvenile shall be released from observation home upon undertaking given by his father that he shall take care of his child as well as both father and son shall visit to the protection of the locality twice in one month seeking guidelines showing his behaviour. 8. In this view of the matter, the order dated 02.07.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2022 by 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, (Children’s Court) Sitamarhi and the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 505 of 2021 is hereby set aside and present Criminal Revision application is hereby allowed.