Jharkhand High Court
Md. Saim @ Saim Ansari @ Md. Salim @ Saheem ... vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. ... on 12 October, 2023
Author: Subhash Chand
Bench: Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 91 of 2023
Md. Saim @ Saim Ansari @ Md. Salim @ Saheem Ansari, represented
through his natural guardian/ father Md. Ajrul @ Md. Ajijul Haque, son of Md.
Jarjis, resident of village Makhmalpur, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj (M), District
Sahibganj, Jharkhand. ..... ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
--------
th
Order No.07 /Dated: 12 October, 2023
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State are present.
2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children's Court, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2022, whereby the appeal was dismissed and affirmed the judgment dated 05.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj in connection with Sahibganj (M) P.S. Case No.112 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 302/ 201 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the bail application of the juvenile was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted there is no evidence against the petitioner except the last seen evidence of the deceased with CCL. So far as the social report is concerned, there is nothing adverse against the CCL. It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner undertakes that he will keep his vigil eyes on him and restrain from coming in association with known criminals.
4. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that there is last seen evidence of the petitioner along with co- accused and the deceased is as per the prosecution case.
5. From perusal of the FIR, it is found that the informant had given written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that on 03.10.2022 at about 03:00 P.M. her eight years old son, namely, Md. Rehan was missing from the house despite search, no whereabouts was known -2- of him and at about 07:30 P.M., it came to know that his son was lying in a half constructed house of Md. Firoz and, accordingly, she reached there and found that her son was roped with the neck as well as abdomen. The Gotaini of the informant, namely, Taraful Bibi and other persons of the village told that Md. Rehan was seen playing with Md. Ajfarul near the Mousque. Md. Ajfarul had earlier been accused of the theft of mobile phones and he was in association of rogues i.e criminals. The name of the petitioner-juvenile is not figured in the FIR. His name transpired during investigation in confessional statement of Ajfarul.
6. From perusal of the case diary, it is found that the trial has commenced and seven prosecution witnesses have been examined, the deposition statement of those witnesses has been annexed as Annexure-S/1 to the supplementary affidavit. Out of seven prosecution witnesses, P.W.-4, Md. Jainul; P.W.-5, Md. Abdul; P.W.-6, Bibi Rubina (informant) and; P.W.-7, Md. Amirul have been declared hostile and not supported the prosecution story. There is no other evidence against the petitioner except confessional statement of the accused that to of last seen evidence.
7. From perusal of the Social Investigation Report, it is found that there is nothing adverse against the CCL except that the juvenile smokes and he is indisciplined.
8. It is settled law that the bail application of a juvenile should ordinarily be allowed, except the circumstances as laid down under the proviso of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015. In view of the Social Investigation Report, none of the ground is shown against the CCL as under the proviso of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015.
9. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as under:
"12. (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or -3- expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.
(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.
(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail."
10. In view of the submissions made and the materials on record, nothing is on record to show that the release of the petitioner on bail would expose him to physical, psychological or moral danger. As such, the impugned order passed by the J.J. Board, which is affirmed by the appellate Court needs interference.
11. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the J.J. Board and the appellate Court are set aside and this Criminal Revision is hereby allowed.
12. In consequence thereof, the petitioner-CCL is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount on behalf of his guardian to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The guardian of the CCL would also give undertaking that he would keep his vigil eyes upon him and will restrain him from coming in association of the known criminals.
(Subhash Chand, J.) Madhav/-