The single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the bail application of a juvenile is to be disposed of in view of the proviso of Section 12 of the J.J. Act. The parameters for disposal of the bail application of a juvenile are altogether different from that of regular bail application under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the officer-in-charge of the police station received secret information that some cybercriminals were duping the persons of the general public. Upon reaching there he found six persons and out of them, four managed to flee away and two were apprehended. Furthermore, two mobile phones and two SIM cards were recovered from the Petitioner.
The bail application of the Petitioner was filed and the J.J. Board rejected the same on the ground that the release of the Petitioner would expose him to psychological, physical, or moral danger and he would come in association with known criminals. Aggrieved by this, the present criminal revision petition is filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the mobile phones and the SIM cards that were recovered from the Petitioner were never used in the commission of the crime.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the proviso of Section 12 of the J.J. Act. has to be taken into consideration while disposing of the bail application of the juvenile. The parameters for granting bail to a juvenile are entirely different from that of regular bail application under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It was furthermore observed that while disposing of the bail application of a Juvenile the gravity or nature of the offense cannot be taken into consideration and ordinarily the bail application of a Juvenile should be allowed unless and until there are exceptional circumstances as laid down under proviso of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act.
It was noted that there were general allegations in the FIR and there is nothing to show that the mobile phones and SIM cards which were recovered from the Petitioner were used in the commission of the crime.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court requires interference.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the criminal revision.
Case title: Rahul Kumar Mandal Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhash Chand
Case No.: Cr. Revision No.1385 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Pravesh Prajapati, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
