Allowed

Siban Lakra Alias Shivan Lakra v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Nov 2024Cr.Rev./90/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision against rejection of bail by the Juvenile Justice Board in a POCSO case. The court held that gravity of offence cannot be considered for a child in conflict with law under Section 12 of the JJ Act, found nothing adverse in the social investigation report, set aside the impugned orders, and granted bail with guardian's undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner CCL to be released on bail on Rs. 25,000 bond with two like sureties; guardian to give undertaking of vigilance.

Siban Lakra Alias Shivan Lakra Vs the State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev No. 90 of 2024

¶3

Siban Lakra@Shivam Lakra age about 16 years s/o Late Komal Oraon, R/o village Bhandra, P.S. Bhandra, District-Lohardaga through his aunt Priti Kumari d/o Budu Oraon aged about 28 years r/o village Bhandra, P.O. PSBhandra, District-Lohardaga …… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

….Opp. Party

¶7

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶9

------For the Petitioner : Mr. Altamas Khan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Advocate -------- Order No. 04 /Dated: 18^th November, 2024

¶10

Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and learned APP for the

¶11

State.

¶12

This Cr. Revision has been directed against the order dated 14.09.2023 whereby the learned Juvenile Justice board Lohardaga had rejected the Bail Application of the petitioner in connection with Bhandra P.S. Case No. 10 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No. 211 of 2023 registered under Sections 363/376DA/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of POCSO Act

¶13

The brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged on behalf of both the victims with these allegations that on 16.02.2023 music and dancing was going on in Dhumkuriya ground of the village. The victim along with her friend had also gone to watch the dance. At 9 o’ clock in the night accused-Mohit dragged her friend and Roshan dragged her to an isolated place where both had committed rape upon both the victims respectively and in the morning at 5 O’ clock both the victims were set free. 3 days ago, the accused Roshan, Dilip, Shivam had also raped her and had criminally intimidated not to disclose in regard to the occurrence to anyone. On this written report Case Crime No.10 of 2023 was registered under Sections 363/376DA/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of POCSO Act against the accused Roshan, Mohit, Dilip and Shivam

¶14

During investigation, the I.O. recorded the statement of both the victims who have corroborated the prosecution story. In view of the medical evidence the allegations of sexual assault was not ruled out. Both the victims

¶15

were under the age of 12 to 13 years.

¶16

In Social Investigation Report of the present petitioner nothing adverse is shown against him and no criminal antecedent of the C.C.L. is shown and it is also stated that if the guardian has vigil eye, there is no possibility to commit further offence by the petitioner who is the child in conflict with law.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also further submitted that though the petitioner is also named in the FIR along with the co-accused, yet the incident is alleged to have been committed 3 days ago from the second occurrence in which the rape was committed upon the victim by different co-accused persons.

¶18

The learned A.P.P. opposed the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

It is the settled law that the bail application of a juvenile has to be disposed of taking into consideration Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2015 wherein it is provided that the bail application of a juvenile has to be allowed except the circumstances as shown in proviso of Section 12 of the J.J.Act. It is also settled law that while disposing of the bail application of a juvenile, the gravity or nature of the offence cannot be taken into consideration. As such, the bail application of a juvenile is governed under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015.

¶20

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

¶21

Children) Act, 2015 reads as under:

¶22

Section 12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.-

¶23

(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 (2 of 1974) 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:

¶24

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.

¶25

(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home [or a place of safety, as the case may be,] in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before the Board.

¶26

(3) When such person is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.

¶27

(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail.

¶28

In view of the Social Investigation Report of the petitionerjuvenile there is nothing adverse against him. There is also nothing to show that the release of CCL would expose him to psychological, social or physical danger and further there is nothing on record to show that if he would be released on bail, he would come in association of known criminals.

¶29

The learned JJ Board and the learned Appellate Court both have not considered the proviso of section 12 of the JJ Act and the social investigation report of CCL as such, the impugned order needs interference.

¶30

This Cr. Revision is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned J.J. Board and the order passed by the learned Appellate Court are set aside.

¶31

Let the child in conflict with law 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 learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga in Bhandra P.S. Case No. 10 of 2023, corresponding to G.R.No.211 of 2023 which are to be furnished on behalf of the guardian of the child in conflict with law. The guardian of the juvenile is also directed to give an undertaking that he will keep vigil eye upon the juvenile and will control him from coming in association of known criminals.

¶32

Abha/-

¶33

(Subhash Chand, J.)

Siban Lakra Alias Shivan Lakra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siban Lakra Alias Shivan Lakra 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

Shakuntala Devi Vs M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd. Represenated through Divisional Manager

Lalan Singh Yadav Vs Pramila Devi

Arun Kumar Sanganeria Vs Balram Mahato

Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited through Its Jharkhand Legal Cell Vs Mahesh Oraon

MD Naseem Khan Vs the President Managing Committee Masjid Dumka

Randhir Kumar Vs Budhdeo Kumar Kashyap