Allowed

Mithun Manjhi Alias Mithun Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Nov 2021Cr.Rev./1/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision granting bail to three juveniles aged 16-17 years. Court directed release under Section 3 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 after treating case under enquiry procedure instead of trial, with monthly probation officer reports.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on bail furnished Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties, with one surety being father. Probation Officer to report monthly.

Mithun Manjhi Alias Mithun Kumar Vs the… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 01 of 2021

¶3

....

¶4

Mithun Manjhi @ Mithun Kumar

¶5

Baneshwar Kumar @ Baneshwar Manjhi

¶6

Janmejay Manjhi @ Janmejay Kumar .… Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Prabhash Manjhi .... Opposite Parties

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶11

For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Adv. For the State : Ms. Niki Sinha, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Gauri Debi, Adv.

¶12

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

¶13

10/17.11.2021 The instant application has been filed against the order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, 1st cum Spl. Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.56/2020 by which the prayer for bail of the petitioners has been rejected in connection with G.R. Case No.30/2020 arising out of Chandankiyari (Barmasia O.P.) P.S. Case No.91 of 2020, registered for the offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act and the same is presently pending in the court of learned Principal Magistrate, J.J. Board, Bokaro.

¶14

The juveniles in conflict with law, are in custody since 21.05.2020, have approached this Court for release through their fathers, who are ready and willing to keep their children under their custody with proper care. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter is still under enquiry and has not been referred for trial. The age of the juveniles have been assessed as 15 years, 16 years and 17 years. On above facts, prayer for bail has been made.

¶15

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶16

The scheme of the J.J. Act, 2015 is very loud and clear that if any juvenile in conflict with law, in the age group of 16-18 years, has committed any heinous crime, then after assessment of age, consideration has to be made under Section 15 of the J.J. Act, 2015 regarding the desirability of the enquiry by the Board or the matter should be sent for trial before the Children’s Court. For this purpose, it has been mandated to take help of the experts for assessing the mental ability of the juvenile. The consideration can be made only by the Board. Even after receipt of the above recommendation, the Children’s Court is supposed to re-assess the entire circumstances and to take decision as to whether the matter should be enquired into by conducting enquiry or the matter should be tried by the Children’s Court. Thus, the mandate is clear that the enquiry is rule and the trial is exception. The entire exercise is mandated to be performed within time frame.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, it appears that the incident is dated 18.05.2020 and the juveniles are in custody since 21.05.2020. The juveniles have been found in the age group of 16 to 18 years.

¶18

In the present case, the matter has not sent for trial and as such this Court has no other option but to treat this case under enquiry rather the Board has treated this case under enquiry.

¶19

Considering the social investigation report and the mandate of Section 3 of the J.J. Act, the petitioners, above named, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, J.J. Board, Bokaro in connection with G.R. Case No.30/2020 arising out of Chandankiyari (Barmasia O.P.) P.S. Case No.91 of 2020, subject to condition that one of the bailor must be the father of the petitioners.

¶20

Further, concerned Probation Officer is directed to report, once in a month, to the Juvenile Justice Board, Bokaro regarding the up keeping of the minors.

¶21

Accordingly, instant criminal revision is allowed.

¶22

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶23

Shahid/

Mithun Manjhi Alias Mithun Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithun Manjhi Alias Mithun Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulbir Singh Kalra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Pandey And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Parbati Devi Vs Babulal Rai

Om Prakash Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Barik Vs Geeta Alias Hemobati Barik

Bikrama Singh Vs Kiran Devi And Anr.