Jharkhand High Court
Rahul Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... ... on 1 March, 2024
Author: Subhash Chand
Bench: Subhash Chand
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.1385 of 2023
Rahul Kumar Mandal, son of Suresh Mandal, represented through his
natural guardian father Suresh Mandal, son of Kunjo Mandal, both
resident of Village Basjor, P.O. Basjor, P.S. Bengabad, District Giridih
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Pravesh Prajapati, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
--------
05/1st March, 2024
1. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order
dated 29.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I Giridih in Cr. Misc. Appeal No.85 of 2023, whereby and
whereunder, the learned appellate court refused to interfere with
the order dated 26.08.2023 passed by the learned Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih in connection with
Bengabad P.S. Case No. 172 of 2023, wherein the prayer for bail
of the petitioner has been rejected.
2. The brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are that the FIR of
this case was lodged by Shashi Singh, Officer-in-charge of
Bengabad Police Station with these allegations that on 04.08.2023
at 13:30 O'clock, he had received secret information that in village
Bansjor some cyber criminals were duping the persons of general
public. On this very information, the Officer-in-charge of police
station concerned reached at the indicated place along with the
police force and found six persons. Out of them, four were
managed to flee away and two were apprehended. It is further
alleged that out of two apprehended persons, one was the
petitioner and from his possession, two mobile phones and two
SIM cards were recovered. It is also alleged that the four persons,
who have managed to flee away, their mobile phones were also
recovered from the place of occurrence. On interrogation, it was
told by the apprehended persons that they deceived the persons
of general public and obtained the QR code on WhatsApp and get
the demand. The apprehended petitioner said that he along with
other associates was involved in commission of the cybercrime.
3. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned
J.J. Board concerned and the same was affirmed by the learned
Appellate Court dismissing the appeal on the ground that the
release of the petitioner would expose him to psychological,
physical or moral danger and he would come in association of
known criminals.
4. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment, the instant Criminal
Revision has been preferred on the ground that both the learned
Courts below have not taken into consideration that there was
nothing adverse against the petitioner-CCL in his Social
Investigation Report.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
mobile phones along with SIM cards which were recovered from
the petitioner was never used in commission of cyber crime
against any person, as such, the impugned order passed by the
learned Courts below are based on erroneous finding.
6. The learned APP for the State opposed the contentions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. It is the settled law 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 to that of regular bail application under
Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also the
settled law that while disposing of the bail application of a Juvenile
the gravity or nature of the offence cannot be taken into
consideration. It is also the settled law that ordinarily the bail
application of a Juvenile should be allowed unless and until there
are exceptional circumstance as laid down under proviso of
Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act which reads as under:
"Section 12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in
conflict with law
(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have
committed a abailable 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
(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 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 persons 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
sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer
shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home or a place of
safety, as the case may be 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."
8. In the FIR itself, there are general allegation in regard to the
commission of cyber crime against the named accused including
the petitioner-CCL. From the mobile phones and SIM cards which
were recovered from the possession of the petitioner-CCL, there is
nothing to show that it was used in commission of cyber crime
against any person. In the case diary, nowhere it is shown that
who was the victim of cybercrime as alleged to have committed by
the petitioner-CCL.
9. So far as the Social Investigation Report of the juvenile is
concerned, nothing adverse is given against him, though it is
mentioned in the impugned order while rejecting the bail
application of the juvenile that in village the other persons were
involved in the cybercrime and the CCL had also come in
association of them. In the Social Investigation Report of the
juvenile, there is nothing to show that upon release of the
petitioner on bail, he would come in association of any known
criminal or would expose him to physical, psychological or moral
danger.
10. In view of the submissions made and materials on record, the
impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, which was
affirmed by the learned Appellate Court needs interference and
this Criminal Revision deserves to be allowed.
11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is hereby allowed and
the aforesaid orders are, hereby, quashed and set aside.
12. In consequence, thereof, the petitioner - CCL is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each by
his guardian to the satisfaction of the court of learned Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih in connection with
Bengabad P.S. Case No.172 2023, subject to condition that the
guardian of the Juvenile shall give an undertaking that he would
keep vigil eyes on the Juvenile and would control him from coming
in association of the known criminals.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Madhav/-
