relevant clause for the offence under Sections 365, 364, 302, 201, 34 of the
IPC. At the instance of the applicant certain articles are seized, which goes to
show prima facie circumstantial evidence against the applicant. Both the courts
below held that there are possibilities that after release the applicant may come
into contact of criminals. The appellate Court further held that since on the
night of the incident, the applicant was not in his home, even then, his parents
not reported the matter to anyone and also the applicant was in close contact
of person having criminal character, it goes to show that the parents are not
having any control over the applicant; thereby both the courts believed that
there are chances if bail is granted that the applicant may come into contact of
criminals.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 1161 of 2015
Manish Kumar Thakur
V
State of Chhattisgarh
Dated:05/05/2016
2. On due consideration, the same is disposed of.
3. With the consent of the parties, heard the matter finally.
4. Brief facts required for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that
Crime No.176/2015 has been registered against the present applicant,
juvenile, along with co-accused Kamlesh Verma by Dongergarh police for the
offence under Sections 365, 364, 302, 201, 34 of the IPC. Police had filed
charge sheet against the present applicant before the Juvenile Justice Board
and charge sheet was filed separately against the co-accused before regular
Court. The applicant had filed an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short 'the Act, 2000).
The Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 16-09-2015 dismissed the said
application of bail and held that if the applicant be granted bail, he may come
into contact of criminals, hence, it would not be appropriate to give the custody2
of the applicant to his parent. Against the said order the applicant preferred
Criminal Appeal No.67/2015 before the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, C.G.
The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 02-11-2015 affirmed the order
passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and held that at the instance of the
memorandum recorded by the co-accused, mobile of deceased Suraj Kumar
Verma, knife used for murder of Suraj Kumar Verma and the motorcycle of the
co-accused were seized at the instance of the present applicant. The present
applicant was not present in his house on the date of incident, his parents not
informed anybody for his absence. The applicant was in contact of person
having criminal antecedent and mentality, it goes to show that there was no
any control of the parents on the said juvenile. The learned Sessions Judge
observed that if bail is granted, the applicant may continue with the company of
criminals, hence, dismissed the said appeal. Against the said order, the
applicant preferred the instant criminal revision under Section 53 of the Act,
2000 wherein it is submitted that the application filed on behalf of the applicant
was wrongly rejected. There was no any eye-witness to the incident, the case
is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. Only on the memorandum
statement of the accused, the applicant has been implicated in the matter.
There is no any adverse report of the probationary officer in the matter; there is
no material to show that there is any likelihood to bring him into association
with the known criminals or to expose any moral, physical or psychological
danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. The applicant is a
permanent resident and there is no chance of his absconding or tempering the
prosecution witnesses. Hence, he may be granted bail during pendency of the
said criminal case against him.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no any evidence
against the present applicant. Only the memorandum statement of other coaccused
was recorded and at the instance of the present applicant one mobile,
knife and one motorcycle of the co-accused were seized. There is no any FSL
report. It is not proved that the mobile belongs to the deceased. There is no
any report of probation officer. It is further submitted that postmortem report of
the deceased does not supports the case of the prosecution that he was given
poison in liquor and thereafter injuries were inflicted by the knife. There is no
any report of probation officer that after his release the applicant may come in
company of known or unknown criminals, no presumption can be inferred for
the same. The case of the present applicant is different. Points for
consideration of case of a juvenile is different with the case of an adult
accused; it is not required to value the element of seriousness of the offence in
a case of juvenile. Hence, it is submitted that the applicant may be released on
bail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes the
petition and submits that both the courts below held that if the applicant is
granted bail he may come into contact of criminals and with this, both the
courts below not found it appropriate to give the custody to the parents thereby
rightly dismissed the application for bail and the criminal appeal. Looking to the
other facts, the order passed by both the courts below are appropriate. Hence,
the instant criminal revision may be dismissed.
8. For the present matter, Section 12 (1) of the Act, 2000 is relevant which
reads as under:-
“12. Bail of juvenile. – (1) When any person accused of a bailable or
non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained
or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,4
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 institution or fit person bu
he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for
believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any
known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger
or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.”
9. From perusal of the above provision of law, it appears that if there are
reasonable grounds to believe that release is likely to bring him into
association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice, the
court may refuse the prayer of bail.
10. In the present case, the applicant, the juvenile, is facing a trial under
relevant clause for the offence under Sections 365, 364, 302, 201, 34 of the
IPC. At the instance of the applicant certain articles are seized, which goes to
show prima facie circumstantial evidence against the applicant. Both the courts
below held that there are possibilities that after release the applicant may come
into contact of criminals. The appellate Court further held that since on the
night of the incident, the applicant was not in his home, even then, his parents
not reported the matter to anyone and also the applicant was in close contact
of person having criminal character, it goes to show that the parents are not
having any control over the applicant; thereby both the courts believed that
there are chances if bail is granted that the applicant may come into contact of
criminals. On due consideration, I do not find any reason to disagree with the
grounds and facts discussed with the orders passed by the courts below.
Looking to the entire facts, I am of the considered opinion that both the courts
below while applying the lawful discretion and for the reasons mentioned
refused the bail to the applicant.5
11. The instant criminal revision is not worth to be allowed. Consequently,
the instant criminal revision is hereby dismissed.
12. The criminal revision dismissed.
Sd/-
(Chandra Bhushan Bajpai)
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment