Bhushan Kumar Singh Alias Nepali v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.209 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-223 Year-2022 Thana- BARHARA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== BHUSHAN KUMAR SINGH ALIAS NEPALI Son of Bhola Shankar Singh R/o Nathmaipur P.S- Bhojpur dist- Bhojpur Bihar 802316 ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Syed Asgher Najmi For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 07-08-2023 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. This revision application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2022 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, in Bail Petition No. 5787 of 2022 in connection with Children Case No. 11 of 2022, arising out of Barhara Police Station Case No. 223 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/307/302/326 of the Indian Penal Code and Section.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that, on 20.03.2022, at about 03:00 PM, upon calling the name of co-accused Arvind Singh by the son of the informant, all the accused persons including the petitioner assaulted him and went away. After some time, at about 05:00 PM, again the accused persons including the petitioner, armed with weapons, arrived at the place of occurrence and co-accused
2/7 Arvind Singh fired upon the informant's son on his face by means of rifle and, in firing, one Khedan Bind also received pellet injury. The son of the informant was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was declared juvenile by order, dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, after coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was minor at the time of alleged occurrence. He next submits that by the impugned order, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for bail on erroneous conclusion that there is a possibility that the petitioner, if released on bail, would fall into association with any known criminal(s) and/or grant of bail to the petitioner may cause moral and psychological danger to him which would defeat the ends of justice. He next submits that learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, did not consider the social investigation report in correct legal perspective. The petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2022.
5. Learned Counsel relies upon Section 3 (i), (iv), (v) and (xiv) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"),
3/7 which are quoted herein below:- "(i) Principle of presumption of innocence:- Any child shall be presumed to be an innocent of any mala fide or criminal intent up to the age of eighteen years.
(iv) Principle of best interest:- All decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop full potential.
(v) Principle of family responsibility:- The primary responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the child shall be that of the biological family or adoptive or foster parents, as the case may be.
(xiv) Principle of fresh start:- All past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system should be erased except in special circumstances"
6. Learned Counsel, referring to above mentioned provisions of law, submits that as per the scheme of the Act there is presumption of innocence of a child in conflict with law and all decisions regarding the child shall be taken in consonance with the principle of the best interest of the child.
4/7 He further submits that the principle of family responsibility and principle of fresh start have also been recognized under the Act.
7. In reference to Section 12 of the Act, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that bail to a child in conflict with law is a rule and denial is exception.
8. Learned Counsel, in the aforesaid background, submits that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, has failed to consider the scheme of the Act and has committed irregularity in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner, if release on bail, may fall into association of known criminals and/or he may expose to the moral and psychological danger which would defeat the ends of justice.
9. Learned Counsel further submits that the father of the petitioner is ready to take proper care of the petitioner after release on bail and shall not allow him to fall into bad company and would try to bring change in his behaviour, if required.
10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that from perusal of Section 12 of the Act, it appears that bail is a matter of right to a child in conflict with law and denial is exception and in view of the fact that father has given an undertaking to reform his child, i.e. the petitioner, this Court may consider to pass appropriate order in the best
5/7 interest of the child in conflict with law.
11. A Bench of this Court, in the case of Lalu Kumar @ Lalbabu @ Lallu v. State of Bihar, reported in 2019 (4) PLJR 833, while interpreting Section 12 of the Act has laid down the principle that the Board while considering bail of a Juvenile is duty bound to follow the principle of 'best interest', 'repatriation' and 'restoration' of child. The gravity and nature of offence are immaterial for consideration of bail of a juvenile. As per Section 12 of the Act of 2015, an application for bail is not decided by reference to classification of offences as bailable or non-bailable under the Criminal Procedure Code.
12. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and on perusal of the impugned order and Social Background Report, I am of the considered opinion that there is possibility of reform in the petitioner inasmuch as character of the petitioner is satisfactory, he is obedient and the petitioner is a student of intermediate and the father of the petitioner is ready to take proper care of the petitioner after his release on bail, as such, there is no likelihood that the petitioner will fall into association with criminal(s) and/or he may expose to the moral and psychological danger which would defeat the ends of justice. As such, the conclusion arrived at by learned 1st
6/7 Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, that the petitioner may fall into bad company and/or he may expose to the moral, physical or psychological danger, is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
13. Accordingly, this revision application is allowed and the order dated 15.11.2022, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, in Bail Petition No. 5787 of 2022 in connection with Children Case No. 11 of 2022, arising out of Barhara Police Station Case No. 223 of 2022, is hereby set aside.
14. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara in Bail Petition No. 5787 of 2022, in connection with Children Case No. 11 of 2022, arising out of Barhara Police Station Case No. 223 of 2022, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that one of the bailors shall be the father of the petitioner;
(ii) that the father of the petitioner shall file an affidavit before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, giving specific undertaking that after release of
7/7 the petitioner on bail, he will take proper care of the petitioner and will not allow him to fall into bad company. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ashwani/- U √ T √