Jharkhand High Court
Parmanand Soren @ Parmanand Soran ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 519 of 2023
Parmanand Soren @ Parmanand Soran @ Pramanand Soren, son of Silash
Soren @ Shailesh Soren, resident of Village Banbad, P.O. and P.S. Maslia,
District Dumka, represented through his father and natural guardian namely
Silesh Soren @ Shailesh Soren, son of Bajun Soren, resident of Banwad,
Ranga Masalia, P.O. and P.S. Masalia, District Dumka ..... ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Neharika Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
--------
th
Order No.06 /Dated: 7 November, 2023
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State
are present.
2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner
against the judgment dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Dumka in Criminal
Miscellaneous Appeal No.03 of 2023, whereby the appeal was dismissed and
affirmed the judgment dated 27.01.2023 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice
Board, Dumka in connection with Dumka (T) P.S. Case No.173 of 2022
corresponding to Juvenile Case No.32 of 2022, wherein the bail application of
the juvenile was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no
cogent evidence against the petitioner in regard to commission of the alleged
offence. The bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned
J.J. Board, which has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court on the
ground that his release would expose him to physical, psychological or moral
danger and he would come in association of the known criminals while there
is nothing in Social Investigation Report in this regard the FIR has been lodged
only on the ground of personal enmity. This fact is also disclosed in the Social
Investigation Report. In view of the above, contended to allow this Criminal
Revision and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned J.J. Board,
which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.
4. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State vehemently
opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
contended that there is ample evidence against the petitioner in regard to his
complicity in commission of the alleged offence.
5. The matrix of the prosecution case is that the informant gave written
information with the police station concerned with these allegations that the
sister of the informant was residing in a rented room and studying in Girls
College. On 15.07.2022 in the morning at 09:00 O'clock, she left for Dumka
from the house and on the next day i.e. 16.07.2022, the friend of sister of the
informant Rimika Kisku told over phone at 02:00 O'clock that her sister was
admitted in Sadar Hospital, Dumka in unconscious condition. Thereafter, the
informant reached there and tried to know the cause of incident. The friend of
sister of the deceased told that both resided in one room and on 15.07.2022
when she came from her house to Dumka, in Dumka market, the deceased
Karmeli Hansda and Parmanand Soren both were in the market. Both used to
love each other. In the night of 15.07.2022, Parmanand Soren stayed at the
room of the deceased and on the next date at 10:00 O'clock the friend of sister
of the informant went to the school. On the same day, at 02:00 O'clock the
friend of sister of the deceased told that his sister has admitted in Sadar
Hospital, Dumka in unconscious condition, who subsequently died with the
utter belief that the accused Parmanand Soren had administered the sister of
the informant with poison and this FIR was lodged.
6. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The
informant in his restatement supported the prosecution story. At paragraph
No.15 of the case diary, the friend of deceased in her statement stated that on
the fateful night, the accused had also come to the room and slept with the
deceased and on the next day at 10:00 O'clock she went to the School. The
only evidence is the last seen evidence of the accused with the deceased. The
cause of death shown due to poison.
7. It is settled law that the bail application of a juvenile should
ordinarily be allowed, except the circumstances as laid down under the
proviso of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015. In view of the Social
Investigation Report, none of the ground is shown against the CCL as
provided under the proviso of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015.
8. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 reads as under:
"12. (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged
to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is
apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought
before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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 person:
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there
appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely
to bring that person into association with any known criminal or
expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger
or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the
Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and
circumstances that led to such a decision.
(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released
on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police
station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an
observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the
person can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section
(1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an
observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such
period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person,
as may be specified in the order.
(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the
conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such
child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the
conditions of bail."
9. The bail application of a juvenile cannot be rejected on the mere
ground that the alleged offence is heinous. From perusal of the case diary, it is
found that in regard to the commission of the offence there is no evidence
against the petitioner except the last seen evidence of the CCL with the
deceased. There is no other corroborating evidence of the same.
10. So far as the Social Investigation Report of the CCL is concerned,
his relation with family members, neighbours and friends are cordial. No bad
habit is shown. There is no criminal antecedent against him. Nothing is adverse
against the CCL in the whole Social Investigation Report. It is also mentioned
that the implication in this case may be due to enmity.
11. In view of the submissions made and the materials on record, nothing
is on record to show that the release of the petitioner on bail would expose him
to physical, psychological or moral danger. As such, the impugned order
passed by the J.J. Board, which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court
needs interference.
12. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the J.J. Board and the
Appellate Court are set aside and this Criminal Revision is hereby allowed.
13. In consequence thereof, the petitioner-CCL is directed to be released
on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount on behalf of his guardian (maternal uncle)
to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The guardian of the CCL (maternal
uncle) would also give undertaking that he would keep his vigil eyes upon him
and will restrain him from coming in association of the known criminals.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Madhav/-
