Lalo Paswan @ Aditya Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.301 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Lalo Paswan @ Aditya Kumar, Son of Pannu Paswan @ Ranjit Paswan, his guardian his father, namely, Pannu Paswan alias Ranjit Paswan resident of Asthawa, P.S. Sekhopur Sarai, District - Seikhepura .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Kumari Sujata Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Uday Chand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioner has been declared juvenile in conflict with law. He is an accused in Seikhopur Sarai P.S. Case No. 46 of 2013. He had applied for his release on bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Seikhpura, which has been rejected by order, dated 29.11.2016. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred appeal against the order refusing his prayer for release on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board, Seikhpura, under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), giving rise to Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2016, which has been rejected by learned First Additional Sessions Judge,

Seikhpura, by order, dated 23.01.2017.

Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Seikhpura, the present criminal revision application, under Section 53 of the Act has been filed.

Learned Court below has refused to accede to the petitioner's prayer for grant of bail mainly on the ground that if released on bail, he will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger and his release will, thus, defeat the ends of justice.

On perusal of the materials on record, the reasons assigned by the Courts below for refusing the petitioner to be released on bail cannot be said to be unreasonable, unjustified and without any valid basis.

The Court, however, cannot loose sight of the legislative intent, which lays down definite period, within which the Juvenile Justice Board is required to complete the enquiry against a juvenile after having been charged with offences and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, under Section 14 of the Act.

This is unfortunate that the said requirement is not being given due weightage, leading to delay in completion of enquiry.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, without

interfering with the impugned orders, I am of the view that interest of justice will be subserved if this application is disposed of with a direction to the Juvenile Justice Board, Seikhpura, to conclude the enquiry within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

All concerned are directed to make best endeavour to ensure that completion of enquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board is not hindered since it is solemn duty of all the concerned functionaries to carry out the provisions of the Act.

If the enquiry, under Section 14 of the Act, is not concluded by the Juvenile Justice Board, Seikhpura, within the aforesaid period of three months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for his release on bail before appropriate forum in accordance with law.

This application stands disposed of with the observation and direction, as above.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/- U