Raja Kumar @ Bikku vs The State Of Bihar

Heard Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the present appeal has been filed against the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Children Case No. 05 of 2025 arising out of Ben P.S. Case No. 142 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 as well as Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel submits that by the order impugned dated 03.01.2026, the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif has rejected the application of the appellant for sending the case back to the learned J.J. Board for trial and disposal because the offences, as alleged against him, are not triable by the learned Sessions Court. It is further submitted that the appeal was taken up on 21.09.2026, when a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had sought a report from the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif that as to how the appellant is facing trial before the Children Court. It is next submitted that Ben P.S. Case No. 142 of 2024 came to be instituted by the informant alleging that on 14.11.2024 at about 03:50 p.m. his father, namely, Karu Tanti was going towards south via PCC road when all of a sudden the informant heard the sound of firing, thus, he along with other family members reached the place of occurrence and, accordingly, the informant along with his family members reached the place of occurrence and found his father in a pool of blood and saw Munna Kumar had shot his father and was talking on phone to one Sudhir and was asking him to come at Western side of the village near a tree with the bike. It is further alleged that thereafter Ashish Raj @ Sudhir came on a bike and thereafter Munna along with Sudhir fled from the place of occurrence on the bike and thereafter the injured was taken to Bihar Sharif Sadar Hospital where Doctors declared his father dead, thus, the instant FIR came to be instituted against Munna and Ashish Raj @ Sudhir.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant, who is son of the deceased, specifically alleges that on hearing the sound of firing, he reached the place of occurrence and saw Munna firing at his father and thereafter called Sudhir who came and both of them fled away. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, Munna surrendered and his confessional statement was recorded wherein he confessed that he was aggrieved by the act of the father of the informant and, thus, had complained to his brother, namely, Sudhir who had provided him with the arms and he shot the father of the informant. It is next submitted that Sudhir was arrested and he also corroborated the confessional statement of Munna. It is also submitted that in view of the materials which transpired during the course of investigation amply reflects that Munna confessed about his participation in the crime being aggrieved by the deceased and after obtaining arms from his brother Sudhir shot the father of the informant and Sudhir also corroborated the confessional statement of Munna that he had provided the arms to Munna for committing the occurrence. It is, thus, submitted that the appellant in the instant appeal is neither named in the FIR nor the informant even raises suspicison against him and even the accused in their confessional statement have not even remotely suggested about the participation of the appellant in the occurrence but then appellant came to be apprehended six months after the occurrence by the villagers as he was found carrying gun by which the occurrence was committed, thus, he was handed over to the police and before the police the appellant confessed that he saw Munna and Sudhir fleeing from the place of occurrence after throwing the arms, thus, he picked the arms. Further, disclosed that while he was going to the flour mill by his bicycle when he fell when Sanjiv came and tried to reason out with him, hence, the appellant became angry and brought the arms which he had picked from the place of occurrence with an intent to threaten him but then was apprehened by the villagers and was handed over to the police. It is, thus, submitted that from perusal of the confessional statement of the appellant, it would manifest that he had not participated in the occurrence of the killing of the father of the informant.

At this stage, Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta, learned A.P.P. submits that the issue being argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has no relevance for adjudicating the issue raised in the instant appeal. It is further submitted that the appellant is aggrieved by the order impunged on the ground that his case has not been transferred to the J.J. Board for trial instead his trial is being conducted before the Children Court when he is a minor. It is next submitted that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had sought a report from the concerned Court on the ground that the order impugned did not record the basis, based on which the case of the appellant was referred to the Children Court. It is next submitted that in compliance of the order dated 21.09.2026 passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, a report from the learned Presiding Officer, Children Court-cum-District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif is on record contained in letter no. 282 dated 30.09.2026. It is further submitted that the report clearly records that the learned J.J. Board assessed the appellant in between 16-18 years and in terms of Section 15 of the J.J. Act, 2015 the assessment of the appellant was made and he was found capable of understanding the consequences of his action and, thus, his case was transferred to the learned Children Court under Section 18(3) of the J.J. Act, 2015. It is, thus, submitted that the learned J.J. Board, after assessing the mental condition of the appellant, found it to be a fit case for being referred to the Children Court for trial. It is next submitted that whether appellant was involved in the occurrence of killing or not or he came to be implicated at the behest of the villagers with arms with an allegation that the arms was used in the occurrence of killing of the father of the informant are aspects to be dealt in the trial.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is not in a positition to rebut the submisions of the learned A.P.P. for the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal.

Hence, the appeal is rejected.