Smt. Munni Devi vs State Of West Bengal
2021 Latest Caselaw 552 Cal

                                        1


                       In the High Court at Calcutta
                      Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
                               Appellate Side
Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Subhasis Dasgupta.


                           CRR No. 1713 of 2020

                              Smt. Munni Devi
                                     Vs.
                             State of West Bengal.

For the Petitioner       :Mr. Sourav Bhattacharyya, Adv.
                         Ms. Rimpy Mukherjee, Adv.


For the State            :Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Adv.
                         Mr. Apurba Kumar Datta, Adv.


Heard on                 : 22.01.2021

Judgment on              : 27.01.2021



Subhasis Dasgupta, J:-


      The impugned order, dated 09.07.2020 passed by the learned Additional

District and Sessions Judge (In-Charge) Bench-II, City Sessions Court,

Calcutta in connection with Sessions Case No. 40 of 2018 under Section

302/34/394

of the Indian Penal Code, thereby rejecting the prayer for bail is a

subject of challenge in this case, under the behest of Section 102 of the

Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 read with Section 397 and 401 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

Learned advocate Mr. Bhattacharyya representing the petitioner had

challenged the legality and propriety of the impugned order alleging the in

appropriate manner of discharge of judicial function by the court below.

As regards the illegality committed by the court below, Mr.

Bhattacharyya contended that the statutory provision contained in Section 12

of the Juvenile (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 had not been duly

complied with, while making rejecting of the prayer for bail. Alleging such

illegality for want of supplying explicit reasons in terms of the proviso

appended to Section 12(1) of the Act referred above, the impugned order was

alleged to be falling sort of propriety of the order, supposed to be discharged

by the court below.

Mr. Ghosh representing the State submitted that the petitioner sought

for bail in a murder case, and the court below having found sufficient

materials in C.D. already collected against the petitioner, rejected the prayer

for bail, and thereby favouring further detention of the petitioner after re-

visualizing the desperate nature and manner of the commission of the murder

involved in this case.

Mr. Ghosh adverting to previous order dated 9th July, 2020 contended

that at the time of commission of offence, petitioner was minor, but with the

passage of time petitioner had already attended his majority. The State thus

attempted to show that there had been previous rejection of the prayer for bail

by the learned court below concerned so as to proceed ahead with this case.

While assailing the impugned order for not making adequate compliance

of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, reliance was sought to be

obtained by the leaned advocate for the petitioner, referring two unreported

decisions of Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of Rahul

Parihar Vs. Sate of M.P. & Anr., and of Meghalya High Court at Shilong

rendered in the case of Shri Nagaitlang Suchiang Vs. State of Meghalaya

and Anr., in order to establish that petitioner could be very well released on

bail for the infraction of law, mentioned herein above, as sought to be

established.

Mr. Ghosh reacted to such decisions countering the same by referring

an unreported decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case

of Binay Tiwari vs. State of M.P. Through Police Station Maihar, District

Satna (MP), in order to challenge that when the learned court below upon

perusal of materials, already collected in the case of docket was pleased to

reject the prayer for bail bearing in mind the desperate nature and manner of

commission of the crime, together with other materials, though not supplying

explicit reasons in the order impugned, there were reasons on the part of the

learned court below to record his dissatisfaction so as to enlarge the petitioner

on bail, and such discretion being exercised judiciously should go undisturbed

being a part of due consideration of the materials collected in the C.D.

transpiring materials against the petitioner.

Herein in this case the principal thrust is against the impugned order

for not recording the reasons behind the rejection of the prayer for bail, as

statutorily should have been made in the order, under the proviso appended

to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. And that being the only

subject of challenge so as to reveal the propriety and illegality of the order

under challenge under the behest of Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act,

2015, the court is of the view that revisional application may be disposed of,

so as to sub-serve the purpose of justice, directing the learned court below to

mandatorily observe the proviso appended to Section 12(1) of the Nuvenile

Justice Act, 2015, by supplying the reasons, while making rejection of the

prayer for bail in an appropriate case, curved out in Section 12 of the Juvenile

Justice Act, 2015.

Liberty is thus given to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail by

filing an appropriate application before the court below, and if any bail

petition is filed at the instance of the petitioner, the same shall be disposed of

without causing any delay upon making mandatory compliance of Section

12(1) proviso, and also in terms of the established principles and guidelines, if

therebe any, operative over this field.

With this direction and observation, the revisional application stands

disposed of.

Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court

below without making any delay.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given

to the appearing parties as expeditiously as possible upon compliance with all

necessary formalities.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)