Patna High Court – Orders
Bajrangi Sahni vs The State Of Bihar on 28 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.356 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-451 Year-2023 Thana- SURSAND District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Bajrangi Sahni, aged about 16 years, Son Of Dashrath Sahni Resident Of
Village - Maruki, P.S. - Sursand, District - Sitamarhi, Through His Father And
Natural Guardian Dashrath Sahni, Aged About 56 Years, Son Of Indradeo
Sahni, Resident Of Village - Maruki, P.S. - Sursand, District - Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Ms. Divya Bharti, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-02-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The instant criminal revision is filed against an
order dated 01.04.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of
2024, whereby and where-under the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children’s Court, Sitamarhi,
rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner, who according to
determination by the Juvenile Justice Board happens to be a
juvenile on the date of commission of offence. The petitioner
has been denied bail in connection with First Information
Report No. 451 of 2023 registered with Sursand P.S., Sitamarhi
dated 14.08.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.356 of 2024(2) dt.28-02-2025
2/12
302, 363, 201, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
respectively.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that Kamod
Yadav Son of Late Lakshmi Yadav filed a written report on
14.08.2023 at 15:00 hours alleging inter-alia that on the night of
10.08.2023 at about 08.00 P.M. (1) Chandan Sah son of Dinesh
Sah, (2) Jilajeet Sahni son of Suresh Sahni, (3) Vidyanand
Kumar son of Lal Bahadur Ray, (4) Bajrangi Sahni son of
Dasrath Sahni, (5) Suresh Sahni son of Late Harak Sahni, (6)
Dinesh Sah son of Sophi Sah and (7) Vinod Yadav son of Late
Ram Daresh Ray, all residents of village Maruki, P.S.- Sursand,
District- Sitamarhi came to call his son Mudrika Kumar aged
about 17 years and took him for a walk to a bridge near the
village. The informant alleged that when his son did not return
home till late that night he thought his son might have slept at
the house of those persons and on next day when informant
asked about his son from those persons, they told him that his
son had gone to a relatives place. Thereafter, informant and his
family members started searching for his son in the nearby
villages and relatives place but he could not be traced.
Thereafter the informant filed the FIR and named the above
persons as accused under the suspicion that they had murdered
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.356 of 2024(2) dt.28-02-2025
3/12
his son. The informant explained the delay in lodging the FIR as
he was searching for his son and having failed to find him, he
approached the police by submitting his written application on
14-08-2023.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report of
informant Kamod Yadav, the instant case bearing Sursand P.S.
Case No. 451 of 2023 registered under Sections 302,363,201
and 120(B)/34 of Indian Penal Code against the seven named
accused including the petitioner and accordingly the police
proceeded with investigation and submitted the charge-sheet.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been
implicated in this case by informant merely on the basis of
suspicion. He further submitted that there is no eye witness who
has come forward to say that he had seen the petitioner with
deceased on the place of occurrence or near the place of
occurrence. He further submitted here that there was no specific
allegation against the petitioner and the informant named him
because he allegedly saw the petitioner and other co-accused
with the deceased Mundrika Kumar on the night of occurrence.
6. He further submitted that the District and
Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that a prayer for bail of a
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.356 of 2024(2) dt.28-02-2025
4/12
juvenile can be rejected only on grounds mentioned in the
Juvenile Justice Act and no other. He further submitted that the
petitioner has a bright career ahead and if he is kept behind the
bars then his bright future will be jeopardized. He further
submitted that the parents of the petitioner undertake to take
proper care and vigilance about the future activities of the
petitioner. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedents and is in
custody since 16.08.2023.
7. Learned APP for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail. He submitted that there is
reasonable grounds for believing that if the petitioner is released
on bail he would come into association with the other bad
elements of the society. He further submitted that the allegations
levelled against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature
and thus he should not be released on bail.
8. The learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi,
vide its order dated 01.02.2024 rejected the petitioner’s bail
application on the grounds that the offences levelled against the
petitioner are serious in nature and if the petitioner is released
there is apprehension of moral, physical and psychological
danger to him and in such circumstances his release would
defeat the ends of justice.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.356 of 2024(2) dt.28-02-2025
5/12
9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-
Special Judge, Children’s Court, Sitamarhi, rejected the prayer
for bail of the petitioner and upheld the order of the Juvenile
Justice Board, Sitamarhi by which the prayer of bail of the
petitioner was rejected and dismissed the appeal.
10. Having perused the FIR, case diary and the
materials available on record, it is evident to note that Section
12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 which deals with grant of bail to juveniles 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 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.”
11. In the case of Biswajit Kumar Pandey @
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.356 of 2024(2) dt.28-02-2025
6/12
Lalu Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
Pat 8499, this court had discussed the statutory provisions of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and binding judicial precedents in
details and held as follows:-
“10. From perusal of Section 12 of the J.J.
Act, 2015, it clearly emerges that Section 12
of the Act overrides the bail provisions as
contained in the Criminal Procedure Act,
1973 or any other law for time being in
force. It further emerges that as per Section
12 of the Act, bail to the Juvenile is a rule
and refusal of the same is an exception and
Juvenile can be denied bail only on the
following grounds:
(i) if there appears reasonable grounds for
believing that the release is likely to bring
that person into association with any known
criminal or
(ii) expose the said person to moral,
physical or psychological danger or
(iii) the person’s release would defeat the
ends of justice.
11. Use of the expression- “such person
shall be released on bail” in Section 12(1)
of the Act also shows that grant of bail to a
juvenile is mandatory unless grounds for
denial are present.
12. It also emerges that seriousness of the
alleged offence or the age of the juvenile
are also no relevant consideration s for
denial of bail under Section 12 of the J.J.
Act. Even a child who has completed or is
above the age of 16 years and is alleged to
have committed a heinous offence is also
entitled to get bail under Section 12 of the
Act, 2015. There is no classification
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.356 of 2024(2) dt.28-02-2025
7/12
whatsoever provided in Section 12 of the
Act, 2015 in regard to grant of bail. Section
12 is applicable to all juveniles in conflict
with law without any discrimination of any
nature. (Also refer to Lalu Kumar @ Lal
Babu Vs. State of Bihar, 2019 (6) BLJ
2016)
13. It also emerges that Section 12 of the
Act, 2015 is in consonance with the object
of the J.J. Act, which intends not to punish
juveniles in conflict with law but to reform
and rehabilitate them by proper care,
protection, development and social
reintegration by adopting a child friendly
approach in the adjudication and disposal
of matters in their best interest. The Act is
based on the belie f that children are the
future of the society and in case they go into
conflict with law under some
circumstances, they should be reformed and
rehabilitated and not punished. No society
can afford to punish its children. Punitive
approach towards children in conflict with
would be self-destructive for the society.
14. The object of the Act manifests not only
in the preamble to the Act but also in
Section 3 of the Act providing for general
principles to be followed in administration
of the Act.
15. It also emerges that Reformatory or
Observation Home is one of the measures
contemplated by our legislature for
reforming and rehabilitating the delinquent
children. However, the family of the child in
conflict with has been considered by the
legislature as the best and first desirable
institution to achieve the object of the Act.
Hence, t he primary responsibility of care
and protection of the child has been given
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.356 of 2024(2) dt.28-02-2025
8/12
to the biological family or adoptive or
foster parents of the child and it has been
contemplated that every child in conflict
with law ha s right to be reunited with his
family at the earliest. Institutionalization of
a juvenile in conflict with law has been
contemplated as the last resort. Such
principles manifest in clauses iv, v, xii and
xiii of Section 3 of the Act of 2015 which
are as follows:
“3. General principles to be followed in
administration of Act. The Central
Government, the State Governments, the
Board, and other agencies, as the case may
be, while implementing the provisions of
this Act shall be guided by the following
fundamental principles, namely:–
…………………………………………………
(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.
…………………………………………………
(xii) Principle of institutionalisation as a
measure of last resort: A child shall be
placed in institutional care as a step of last
resort after making a reasonable inquiry.
(xiii) Principle of repatriation and
restoration: Every child in the juvenile
justice system shall have the right to be re-
united with his family at the earliest and to
be restored to the same socio-economic and
cultural status that he was in, before
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.356 of 2024(2) dt.28-02-2025
9/12
coming under the purview of this Act,
unless such restoration and repatriation is
not in his best interest.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. In view of the aforesaid object and
principles of the J.J. Act, 2015, Section 12
of the Act provides for mandatory bail to a
juvenile in conflict with law unless the
grounds as provided in the proviso to
Section 12(1) of the Act is/are present, so
that the child is re-united with his family at
the earliest opportunity and the protection,
development, reformation and
rehabilitation of the child is ensured.
17. Hence, as per the J.J. Act of 2015, a
child in conflict with law is not expected to
be treated as an adult offender.
Fundamentally a different approach is
required while dealing with juvenile in
conflict with law. All Courts are required to
deal with juvenile in conflict with law with
all sensibility and responsibility keeping in
mind the object of the J.J. Act to reform and
rehabilitate the child, so that he can
become a responsible and productive
member of the society. The society would
get ruined if such children are dealt with
punitive and not reformatory approach.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. Coming to the case in hand, I find that the
learned Children’s Court-cum- Addl. District and Sessions
Judge-I, Sitamarhi has rejected the bail petition of the appellant
on the grounds that he was involved in the alleged offence of
murder and his release would bring him into association with
other bad elements and expose him to moral, physical and
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.356 of 2024(2) dt.28-02-2025
10/12
psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of
justice.
13. However, as per the statutory provisions and
binding judicial precedents, I find that the mere involvement of
the appellant in offence of serious nature is no ground for
denying bail to a juvenile.
14. Moreover, the observation of learned trial
Court that the appellant has bad company is baseless. The Social
Investigation Report does not show that the appellant was
involved in any criminal activities prior to the present case. No
crime has been shown to have been committed by him prior to
the present case.
15. The finding of the trial Court that the release
of the appellant would bring him into bad company is also
unfounded. As per Social Investigation Report, it does not
appear that he was a member of any criminal group and his
release may bring him into company of that group.
16. I also find that learned trial Court has
misconceived the meaning of ‘ends of justice’ when he has held
that release of the appellant would defeat the ends of justice.
The meaning of ends of justice in the context of J.J. Act is
totally different. The purpose and object of the J.J. Act is to
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.356 of 2024(2) dt.28-02-2025
11/12
reform and rehabilitate the juveniles and not to punish them.
The preamble of the Act reads as follows:-
“An Act to consolidate and amend the law
relating to children alleged and found to be
in conflict with law and children in need of
care and protection by catering to their
basic needs through proper care,
protection, development, treatment, social
reintegration, by adopting a child-friendly
approach in the adjudication and disposal
of matters in the best interest of children
and for their rehabilitation through
processes provided, and institutions and
bodies established, herein under and for
matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto.”
17. As such, if keeping of the child in custody is
helpful in his development and rehabilitation or protection, only
then it could be said that release of the child would defeat the
ends of justice. This view has been observed by the learned
Delhi High Court in Abhishek Vs. State, 205 CriLJ (NOC) 115
(Delhi) and Manoj Vs. State (NCT of Delhi, 2006 CriLJ 4759).
The family is considered as the best and most desirable
institution for ensuring welfare and rehabilitation of the child, if
the family environment is conducive for the development of the
child. In such situation, the release of the appellant on bail
would serve and promote the ends of justice better than
detaining the appellant in the observation home.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.356 of 2024(2) dt.28-02-2025
12/12
18. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable
in the eye of law. It is accordingly set aside allowing the present
petition, directing the appellant to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand/-) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi
in connection with J.J. Board Case No.2164 of 2023 arising out
of Sursand P.S. Case No.451 of 2023, subject to the condition
that both the bailors must be the father and mother of the
petitioner.
(i) The father and mother of the appellant
undertake by way of affidavit that the appellant would not come
into contact with any criminal;
(ii) They further undertake to provide vocational
training to the petitioner and;
(iii) They further undertake to ensure that the
petitioner would attend the J.J. Board and Courts as and when
required or directed.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Brajesh Kumar/-
U
[ad_1]
Source link