Simhadri vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 9663 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                           BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

   CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.686 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Simhadri,
S/o Late Nagaraju,
Aged 17 years,
R/of Murarayanahalli Village,
Pavagada Taluk,
Tumakuru Dt-572 202.

Also at:
Kurlapalli Village,
Roddama Hobli,
Pernakonda Taluk,
Andhra Pradesh-515 641.

Rep.by his Natural Guardian
and mother
Narayanamma,
W/o Late Nagaraju @ Nagarajappa,
Aged about 35 years,
R/of Murarayanahalli Village,
Pavagada Taluk,
Tumakuru Dt-572 202.                   .. Petitioner

 ( By Sri Manjunath B.R., Advocate )

AND:

State of Karnataka by
Pavagada Police,
Represented by
                                              Crl.R.P.No.686/2022
                               2


State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore-560 001.                             .. Respondent

 ( By Sri K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

      This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 102
of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) of Children Act, 2015
read with Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for
records in Crl.No.244/2021, now in J.C.No.03/2022 on the file
of Hon'ble Juvenile Justice Board at Tumakuru and also records
in Crl.Appl.No.9/2022 on the file of Hon'ble Prl.District and
Sessions Judge at Tumakuru, set aside the order dated
14.01.2022 passed in Cr.No.244/2021 (now in J.C.No.03/2022)
on the file of Hon'ble Juvenile Justice Board at Tumakuru and
also set aside the order dated 28.02.2022 passed in
Crl.Appl.No.9/2022 on the file of Hon'ble Prl.District and
Sessions Judge at Tumakuru and enlarge the petitioner on bail
in Cr.No.244/2021 (now in J.C.No.03/2022) of Pavagada Police
Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 302
of IPC, pending on the file of Hon'ble Juvenile Justice Board at
Tumakuru, in the interest of justice.

      This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission
through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day,
the Court made the following:

                            ORDER

The present petitioner was arraigned as an accused

in the alleged murder of one Smt.Lakshminarasamma, who

is said to be the foster-mother of the petitioner herein.

2. It is alleged by the prosecution that deceased

Lakshminarasamma had only two daughters, as such, she Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

was considering the petitioner as her son though he was

son of her sister. The deceased is said to have received a

compensation of about `1.5 lakhs towards the acquisition

of her landed property which she is said to have distributed

among her daughters. The present petitioner was not

happy with that and was always quarrelling with said

Lakshminarasamma seeking a share for him in the said

compensation amount.

It is the further case of the prosecution that, even on

the alleged night of incident, which was in the intervening

night of 15th and 16th November 2021 also, the petitioner

quarreled with his foster-mother Lakshminarasamma

demanding the money from her. However, at about

3.00 a.m., on 16.11.2021, by assaulting

Lakshminarasamma with a cement brick and tying around

her neck with a mobile charger wire, he committed her

murder and ran away from the place and thus, has

committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred

to as `IPC').

3. The petitioner is said to be a child in conflict with

law (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `CCL'), aged

about 17 years. He made an application under Section 12

of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)

Act, 2015 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `J.J.Act'),

seeking his enlargement on bail. The Juvenile Justice

Board, Tumakuru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as

`J.J.Board'), rejected the application vide its order

dated 14.01.2022 passed in J.C.No.03/2022

(Cr.No.244/2021).

Challenging the said order of rejection, the CCL filed

a Criminal Appeal in the Court of Prl.District & Sessions

Judge, Tumakuru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as

`Sessions Judge's Court'), under Section 101 of J.J.Act.

The said Criminal Appeal which was registered as Criminal

Appeal No.09/2022 also came to be dismissed by the Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

judgment of the Sessions Judge's Court dated 28.02.2022.

Aggrieved by the same, the CCL has filed this revision

petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

High Court Government Pleaders for the respondent-State

are physically present in the Court.

5. Though this matter is listed for admission, with the

consent from both parties, the matter was taken up for

arguments on main on merits.

6. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the

materials placed before this Court, including the records of

J.J. Board.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the sole reason on which the CCL was denied his

enlargement on bail was on the assumption that one

Sri Bheemanna, a charge sheet witness was a last seen

witness and he has seen the CCL running away from the Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

house of Lakshminarasamma after committing the alleged

act. However, nowhere the said statement of Bheemanna

given before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. whispers about he seeing the accused running

away from the house of deceased Lakshminarasamma.

As such, the entire case of the prosecution was without

any prima facie material to continue to detain the CCL in

custody.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent submits that, apart from

several of the charge sheet witnesses speaking about the

CCL repeatedly quarrelling with Lakshminarasamma

demanding money from her, the recoveries made at the

instance of CCL, which includes blood stained mobile

charger and blood stained cloths, coupled with the Forensic

Science Laboratory report, shows prima facie at this stage

that it is the present petitioner and petitioner alone who

has committed the alleged offence.

Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

9. It has to be noticed that the application made by

the present petitioner (CCL) before the J.J. Board was

under Section 12 of J.J.Act, which reads as below :

" 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 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 (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 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.

                                                    Crl.R.P.No.686/2022




           (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 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."

A reading of the said section goes to show that

generally a bail to a child in conflict with law cannot be

denied or deprived unless the Board or the Court, as the

case may be, comes to an opinion that his release is likely

to bring that person into association with any known criminal or Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological

danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of

justice.

The said Section was considered and interpreted by

Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharambir Singh -vs- State, NCT of

Delhi, reported in 2007 SCC Online Del 1735, wherein in

Paragraph-8 of its judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court was

pleased to make an observation as below :

" 8. Section 12 makes it mandatory for a juvenile, even if he is "apparently a juvenile" to be released on bail, then this Court and all the Courts dealing with such a situation must give full meaning to the provisions of the said section as also the object of the Act. Bail has to be granted to a juvenile, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force. The idea behind Section 12 being that the juvenile must be released on bail unless releasing him on bail would be detrimental to him or would entirely defeat the ends of justice."

10. In the instant case, both the J.J. Board, as well as

the Sessions Judge's Court have only considered the Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

alleged merits of the case in considering the application

filed by the CCL under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, by

ignoring the provisions of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, where

it specifically mentions as to when the relief of bail be

denied to a child in conflict with law.

11. Admittedly, neither the order of J.J. Board nor

the order of Sessions Judge's Court anywhere mentiones

about they going through any material or piece of paper

which at least suspect that in case of release of the

petitioner (CCL), there is all the likelihood of he coming in

contact with other criminals and become hardened criminal

or being subjected to moral, physical or psychological

danger. No reasons have been whispered by them leading

to conclude that the release of the petitioner would be

detrimental to the interest of justice.

On the other hand, both the J.J. Board, as well as

Sessions Judge's Court have only observed that

Bheemanna was projected as a witness, who had seen the Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

CCL lastly in the company of the deceased, as well,

immediately after the alleged incident, said Bheemanna

has seen the CCL running from the house of the deceased.

However, the relevant statement of said Bheemanna, so

also, his further statement said to have been given to the

Investigating Officer, the true copies of which are placed

before me along with the petition, would not mention of

Bheemanna stating before the Investigating Officer about

he seeing the CCL running away from the house of

deceased Lakshminarasamma immediately after the

alleged incident.

12. Thus, admittedly the case of the prosecution is

based on the circumstantial evidence. In such a case,

proving the alleged guilt against the present

petitioner/CCL, who according to the prosecution is

admittedly a juvenile, would be during the full-fledged

trial. As such, in the absence of there being any direct or

cogent evidence showing the alleged involvement of the

CCL in the commission of alleged crime and also rejection Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

of his application under Section 12 of the J.J. Act by the

J.J. Board, appears to be with the wrong notion of the

charge sheet witness Bheemanna who is alleged to have

seen the CCL running away from the house of the

deceased, I am of the view that, since now the same is

proved to be not the statement of Bheemanna and that

there are no materials to show that, in case of release of

the juvenile/petitioner/CCL, there are any reasons to

suspect his moral turpitude or coming in association of

any hardened criminals, I am of the view that, by imposing

reasonable conditions, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

Incidentally, the mother of the petitioner/CCL has

also filed her affidavit as a part of the petition undertaking

that she is ready to take care and custody of the petitioner

and ready to keep present her juvenile son before the

Juvenile Justice Board on all the dates of hearing without

fail.

13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

order:

Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

ORDER

The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

The petitioner-Simhadri, son of Late Nagaraju,

resident of Murarayanahalli Village, Pavagada Taluk,

Tumakuru District, is enlarged on bail and entrusted to the

custody and supervision of his natural mother

Smt.Narayanamma, wife of late Nagaraju @ Nagarajappa,

aged about 35 years, residing at Doddahalli Village,

Chikkahalli Post, Y.N.Hosakote Hobli, Pavagada Taluk,

Tumakuru District and also subject to the following

conditions:

(i) Both, the petitioner/CCL and Smt.Narayanamma to execute a personal bond for a sum of `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board,

(ii) The petitioner/CCL shall appear before the Juvenile Justice Board on all the dates of hearing and undertake to abide by the further orders made, if any, by the Juvenile Justice Board.

Crl.R.P.No.686/2022

(iii) The petitioner/CCL and his natural mother Smt.Narayanamma shall keep informed the Juvenile Justice Board in writing about the change in their address, if any, and obtain an acknowledgement in that regard.

  (iv)    Both       the             petitioner/CCL          and
          Smt.Narayanamma             shall     execute       an
          undertaking      to    the      effect      that   the
          petitioner/CCL    would      not    involve   in   any

criminal offences during the pendency of the matter before the Juvenile Justice Board.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bk/