Santosh Das vs State of Jharkhand

Ravi Nath Verma, J.—The sole petitioner Santosh Das has moved this Court under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short " the Act") against the order dated 19.02.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No. 02 of 2016, whereby and where under, the prayer for bail of the petitioner,which was rejected by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar vide order dated 18.01.2016 in G.R No. 1362 of 2015, E.N. No. 68 of 2016 instituted under Sections 302/34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3 /4 of the Explosive Substance Act, has been affirmed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel representing the State.

The prosecution case relates to the offence under Sections 302/34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3 /4 of the Explosive Substance Act.

It appears from the record that the petitioner was declared juvenile by a competent court and thereafter a bail petition was filed by the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar, which was rejected vide order dated 18.01.2016. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No. 02 of 2016 before the Sessions Court, and the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below have failed to consider the mandate given under Section 12 of the Act wherein irrespective of the offence committed by the petitioner, bail has to be granted to a juvenile and that in a Full Bench Judgment of Hon''ble Patna High Court, the ratio has been decided that grant of bail is a rule and denial or refusal to grant bail is an exception. It was also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 20.06.2015 and that the present revision application has been preferred by the petitioner through his natural guardian (father) Kodo Das and referring paragraph 8 of the revision application, learned counsel further submitted that parents of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner, if he is released on bail.

Learned counsel representing the State has no serious objection.

Considering the submissions of the counsels, the period in custody and the mandate given under Section 12 of the Act, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Hence, the petitioner above name is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar in connection with Nagar (Kunda) P.S Case No. 622 of 2015, corresponding to G.R No. 1362 of 2015, E.N. No. 68 of 2016 with a condition that one of the bailor must be the father of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner is directed to file an undertaking in the court below to the extent that they will keep the petitioner at a safe place and will not allow the petitioner to meet any unsocial element and further directed to produce the petitioner before Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar on each and every date, fixed in the concerned case, till the conclusion of the inquiry.

Accordingly, this revision application is, hereby, allowed. The order dated 18.01.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar in G.R No. 1362 of 2015, E.N. No. 68 of 2016 and the order dated 19.02.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No. 02 of 2016 are, hereby, set aside.