Allowed

Simhadri v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Jun 2022CRL.RP/686/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition filed by a juvenile accused of murder. It set aside orders denying bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and Sessions Court, holding that bail under Section 12 is mandatory unless specific dangers exist, which were not proven.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties for the likesum, to be entrusted to mother's custody.

Simhadri Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.686 OF 2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Simhadri, S/o Late Nagaraju, Aged 17 years, R/of Murarayanahalli Village, Pavagada Taluk, Tumakuru Dt-572 202.

¶7

Also at: Kurlapalli Village, Roddama Hobli, Pernakonda Taluk, Andhra Pradesh-515 641.

¶8

Rep.by his Natural Guardian and mother Narayanamma, W/o Late Nagaraju @ Nagarajappa, Aged about 35 years, R/of Murarayanahalli Village, Pavagada Taluk, Tumakuru Dt-572 202. .. Petitioner

¶9

( By Sri Manjunath B.R., Advocate )

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Karnataka by Pavagada Police, Represented by

¶12

Crl.R.P.No.686/2022 2

¶13

State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-560 001. .. Respondent

¶14

( By Sri K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

¶15

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) of Children Act, 2015 read with Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for records in Crl.No.244/2021, now in J.C.No.03/2022 on the file of Hon'ble Juvenile Justice Board at Tumakuru and also records in Crl.Appl.No.9/2022 on the file of Hon'ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru, set aside the order dated 14.01.2022 passed in Cr.No.244/2021 (now in J.C.No.03/2022) on the file of Hon'ble Juvenile Justice Board at Tumakuru and also set aside the order dated 28.02.2022 passed in Crl.Appl.No.9/2022 on the file of Hon'ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru and enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.244/2021 (now in J.C.No.03/2022) of Pavagada Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, pending on the file of Hon'ble Juvenile Justice Board at Tumakuru, in the interest of justice.

¶16

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The present petitioner was arraigned as an accused

¶19

in the alleged murder of one Smt.Lakshminarasamma, who

¶20

is said to be the foster-mother of the petitioner herein.

¶21

It is alleged by the prosecution that deceased

¶22

Lakshminarasamma had only two daughters, as such, she

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

¶24

¶25

was considering the petitioner as her son though he was son of her sister. The deceased is said to have received a compensation of about `1.5 lakhs towards the acquisition of her landed property which she is said to have distributed among her daughters. The present petitioner was not happy with that and was always quarrelling with said Lakshminarasamma seeking a share for him in the said compensation amount.

¶26

It is the further case of the prosecution that, even on the alleged night of incident, which was in the intervening night of 15^th and 16^th November 2021 also, the petitioner quarreled with his foster-mother Lakshminarasamma demanding the money from her. However, at about 3.00 a.m., on 16.11.2021, by assaulting Lakshminarasamma with a cement brick and tying around her neck with a mobile charger wire, he committed her murder and ran away from the place and thus, has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.686/2022 4

¶28

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `IPC').

¶29

The petitioner is said to be a child in conflict with law (hereinafter for brevity referred to as CCL'), aged about 17 years. He made an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as J.J.Act'), seeking his enlargement on bail. The Juvenile Justice Board, Tumakuru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `J.J.Board'), rejected the application vide its order dated 14.01.2022 passed in J.C.No.03/2022 (Cr.No.244/2021).

¶30

Challenging the said order of rejection, the CCL filed a Criminal Appeal in the Court of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `Sessions Judge's Court'), under Section 101 of J.J.Act. The said Criminal Appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.09/2022 also came to be dismissed by the

¶31

Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

¶32

¶33

judgment of the Sessions Judge's Court dated 28.02.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the CCL has filed this revision petition.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleaders for the respondent-State are physically present in the Court.

¶35

Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent from both parties, the matter was taken up for arguments on main on merits.

¶36

Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court, including the records of J.J. Board.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶38

the sole reason on which the CCL was denied his enlargement on bail was on the assumption that one Sri Bheemanna, a charge sheet witness was a last seen witness and he has seen the CCL running away from the

¶39

¶40

Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

¶41

house of Lakshminarasamma after committing the alleged act. However, nowhere the said statement of Bheemanna given before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. whispers about he seeing the accused running away from the house of deceased Lakshminarasamma. As such, the entire case of the prosecution was without any prima facie material to continue to detain the CCL in custody.

¶42

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent submits that, apart from several of the charge sheet witnesses speaking about the CCL repeatedly quarrelling with Lakshminarasamma demanding money from her, the recoveries made at the instance of CCL, which includes blood stained mobile charger and blood stained cloths, coupled with the Forensic Science Laboratory report, shows prima facie at this stage that it is the present petitioner and petitioner alone who has committed the alleged offence.

¶43

Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

¶44

¶45

It has to be noticed that the application made by the present petitioner (CCL) before the J.J. Board was under Section 12 of J.J.Act, which reads as below :

¶46

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

¶47

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.

¶48

Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

¶49

¶50

(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 in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.

¶51

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (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.

¶52

(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."

¶53

A reading of the said section goes to show that generally a bail to a child in conflict with law cannot be denied or deprived unless the Board or the Court, as the case may be, comes to an opinion that his release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or

¶54

¶55

Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

¶56

expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶57

The said Section was considered and interpreted by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharambir Singh -vs- State, NCT of Delhi, reported in 2007 SCC Online Del 1735, wherein in Paragraph-8 of its judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to make an observation as below :

¶58

" 8. Section 12 makes it mandatory for a juvenile, even if he is "apparently a juvenile" to be released on bail, then this Court and all the Courts dealing with such a situation must give full meaning to the provisions of the said section as also the object of the Act. Bail has to be granted to a juvenile, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force. The idea behind Section 12 being that the juvenile must be released on bail unless releasing him on bail would be detrimental to him or would entirely defeat the ends of justice."

¶59

In the instant case, both the J.J. Board, as well as

¶60

the Sessions Judge's Court have only considered the

¶61

Crl.R.P.No.686/2022 10

¶62

alleged merits of the case in considering the application filed by the CCL under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, by ignoring the provisions of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, where it specifically mentions as to when the relief of bail be denied to a child in conflict with law.

¶63

Admittedly, neither the order of J.J. Board nor the order of Sessions Judge's Court anywhere mentiones about they going through any material or piece of paper which at least suspect that in case of release of the petitioner (CCL), there is all the likelihood of he coming in contact with other criminals and become hardened criminal or being subjected to moral, physical or psychological danger. No reasons have been whispered by them leading to conclude that the release of the petitioner would be detrimental to the interest of justice.

¶64

On the other hand, both the J.J. Board, as well as Sessions Judge's Court have only observed that Bheemanna was projected as a witness, who had seen the

¶65

Crl.R.P.No.686/2022 11

¶66

CCL lastly in the company of the deceased, as well, immediately after the alleged incident, said Bheemanna has seen the CCL running from the house of the deceased. However, the relevant statement of said Bheemanna, so also, his further statement said to have been given to the Investigating Officer, the true copies of which are placed before me along with the petition, would not mention of Bheemanna stating before the Investigating Officer about he seeing the CCL running away from the house of deceased Lakshminarasamma immediately after the alleged incident.

¶67

Thus, admittedly the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. In such a case, proving the alleged guilt against the present petitioner/CCL, who according to the prosecution is admittedly a juvenile, would be during the full-fledged trial. As such, in the absence of there being any direct or cogent evidence showing the alleged involvement of the CCL in the commission of alleged crime and also rejection

¶68

Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

¶69

¶70

of his application under Section 12 of the J.J. Act by the J.J. Board, appears to be with the wrong notion of the charge sheet witness Bheemanna who is alleged to have seen the CCL running away from the house of the deceased, I am of the view that, since now the same is proved to be not the statement of Bheemanna and that there are no materials to show that, in case of release of

¶71

the juvenile/petitioner/CCL, there are any reasons to suspect his moral turpitude or coming in association of any hardened criminals, I am of the view that, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

¶72

Incidentally, the mother of the petitioner/CCL has also filed her affidavit as a part of the petition undertaking that she is ready to take care and custody of the petitioner and ready to keep present her juvenile son before the Juvenile Justice Board on all the dates of hearing without fail.

¶73

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶74

Crl.R.P.No.686/2022 13

¶75

ORDER

¶76

The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

¶77

The petitioner-Simhadri, son of Late Nagaraju, resident of Murarayanahalli Village, Pavagada Taluk, Tumakuru District, is enlarged on bail and entrusted to the custody and supervision of his natural mother Smt.Narayanamma, wife of late Nagaraju @ Nagarajappa, aged about 35 years, residing at Doddahalli Village, Chikkahalli Post, Y.N.Hosakote Hobli, Pavagada Taluk, Tumakuru District and also subject to the following conditions:

¶78

(i) Both, the petitioner/CCL and Smt.Narayanamma to execute a personal bond for a sum of `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board,

¶79

(ii) The petitioner/CCL shall appear before the Juvenile Justice Board on all the dates of hearing and undertake to abide by the further orders made, if any, by the Juvenile Justice Board.

¶80

Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

¶81

¶82

(iii) The petitioner/CCL and his natural mother Smt.Narayanamma shall keep informed the Juvenile Justice Board in writing about the change in their address, if any, and obtain an acknowledgement in that regard.

¶83

(iv) Both the petitioner/CCL and Smt.Narayanamma shall execute an undertaking to the effect that the petitioner/CCL would not involve in any criminal offences during the pendency of the matter before the Juvenile Justice Board.

¶84

Sd/JUDGE

¶85

bk/

Simhadri v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simhadri v. State of Karnataka

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

Smt M Soubhagyalakshmi Vs Sri S S Abdul Salam

Keshavamurthy Ashok Vs Sri. Sushil Kumar Jain

Selvamani S/O Ramalingam, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nandeesha v Vs Sri Seenappa S

Smt Saral Babu Vs Sri Kodanda

D Chandraiah Vs K Gaddigeppa