Allowed

Sanjay Kumar Alias Sanju v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC24 Aug 2023Cr.Rev./597/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision, the High Court of Jharkhand allowed the revision and set aside the order rejecting bail. The court held that based on the Social Investigation Report showing no adverse factors, the juvenile should be released on bail despite the nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Directing the child in conflict with law to be released on bail with a bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties.

Sanjay Kumar Alias Sanju Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 597 of 2023

¶2

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju .... .… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party --------

¶3

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶4

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate. For the Opp. Party : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P.

¶6

¶7

Order No.05/dated 24.08.2023

¶8

This Cr. Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the Judgment and order dated 06.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Godda in Cr. Appeal No. 22 of 2023 whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the learned J.J. Board in M.C.A. No. 1222 of 2023 has been affirmed wherein the bail application of the juvenile has been rejected.

¶9

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Juvenile Board and also by the Appellate Court is not based on the Social Investigation Report while there is nothing adverse against him. While disposing the bail application of a juvenile, the gravity of the offence is not to be taken into consideration in view of Section 12 unless and until there are exceptional circumstances as shown in the proviso of Section 12, the bail application of the juvenile should not be rejected. The impugned order passed by the J.J.Board and the Appellate Court are not based on the

¶10

¶11

Social Investigation Report rather their bail has been rejected keeping in view the nature of the offence.

¶12

The learned A.P.P. opposed the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and contended that the impugned order passed by the J.J.Board and also by the Appellate Court is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation and Social Investigation Report was also taken into consideration. 4. The prosecution version is that the informant gave the written information with the Police Station concerned that his 17 years old daughter was missing from the house since 5:30 of 08.03.2022 on the occasion of Holi who had left the house to play Holi. When she did not come back till 8 O’clock, the informant went to the house of her friend and it was told that she had left her house. The call was also made on her mobile phone No. 9142149334 but each time it was switched off. On next day on 09.03.2023 at 6 O’clock the dead body was also found in West of half kilometre away from Govindpur Pahar. The dead-body was identified to be the daughter of the informant. This F.I.R. was lodged against the unknown persons. 5. The name of the juvenile transpired during investigation in the statement of friend of the deceased in para 21 of the case diary wherein this witness Babita @ Bebi stated that on 08.03.2023 at 6 O’clock the deceased had come to her house to play colour on the occasion of Holi and thereafter she told that one Sanju @ Sanjay Kumar was calling as he had brought gift

¶13

¶14

for her and she left her house at 6:30 of evening and on asking by the mother of the deceased at 8-9 O’clock she told that the deceased had left the house. The child in conflict with law was also nabbed who confessed his guilt and on his confessional statement one iron pipe and a mobile phone of deceased was also recovered.

¶15

In view of para 32 of the case diary, the C.D.R. details of both the mobile phones of the accused and the deceased are given which show their location at the place of occurrence. 7. In view of para 42 of the case diary, the cause of death is crush injury over the head caused by blunt object. The antemortem injury head crushed with exposed brain matter is shown. Deep laceration of size (2x3) cm & (2x5) cm on right side of forehead. Nose broken (Nasal bone fractured).

¶16

So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the only evidence against the petitioner is the last seen evidence wherein the friend of the deceased had stated that the deceased had left the house at 6:30 O’clock on 08.03.2023 that the friend of deceased was calling her to give gift.

¶17

The statement of accused was also recorded and confessional statement of co-accused was recorded in para 27 of the case diary and on his confessional statement the iron pipe is recovered. The mobile phone of the deceased is also alleged to be recovered.

¶18

It is also settled law that while disposing the bail application of a juvenile, the gravity of the offence is not taken

¶19

¶20

into account. It is the Social Investigation Report which has to be considered in view of Section 12 of the J.J. Act.

¶21

From the Social Investigation Report of the petitioner, it is found that there is no criminal antecedent of the C.C.L. His attitude towards the family members, neighbours and villagers is shown to be good. In the Social Investigation Report there is nothing adverse against the juvenile to show that if the juvenile was released on bail, his release would expose him to physical, psychological or moral danger. There is nothing in the Social Investigation Report that if the juvenile is released on bail, he would come in company of known criminals.

¶22

Keeping in view the Social Investigation Report, the impugned order passed by the J.J. Board and the Appellate Court needs interference. Accordingly, this Cr. Revision is hereby allowed.

¶23

The impugned order passed by the J.J. Board and the Appellate Court are set aside. 2. In consequence thereof, the child in conflict with law is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) and two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Godda in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No. 47 of 2023 which are to be furnished on behalf of the guardian of the child in conflict with law.

¶24

The guardian of the child is also directed to give an undertaking that he would keep the vigil eye on the C.C.L. and

¶25

¶26

would control him from being in association with the known

¶27

criminals.

¶28

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶29

P.K.S.

Sanjay Kumar Alias Sanju v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Alias Sanju 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajrun Khatoon Alias Ajrun Bibi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uday Kant Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mangal Purty Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradip Yadav Alias Pradip Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vishun Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand