Samarjeet Kumar @ Samarjeet Yadav And Ors vs State Of Bihar

Heard the parties.

This criminal revision, under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is against refusal of prayer for bail on

26.07.2019 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi in connection with Juvenile Justice Board Trial No. 897 of 2019 arising out of Sonbarsa P.S. Case

No. 32 of 2019 registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

According to FIR, three persons on a motorcycle, intercepted the informant and others, on the way and one person took out his pistol and fired at

the informant causing injury at the knee of the right leg. Out of three, two were identified including the assailant and they were Md. Rasul and Vijay

Kumar. Third person was not identified and during investigation, it revealed that the petitioner was the third person.

Though no overt act is alleged against the petitioner in the FIR, the Juvenile Justice Board refused the prayer for bail on the ground that the

petitioner is carrying criminal antecedent and his release would bring the petitioner in the company of criminal associates and the atmosphere out side

the Remand Home is not conducive for the petitioner. Identical view was adopted by the appellate court in Cr. Appeal No. 50 of 2019/20 of 2019

while dismissing the appeal by the impugned order dated 01.10.2019.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is not a matter of preventive detention, rather a case of consideration of prayer for bail

of a juvenile. If no overt act was alleged in the FIR against the petitioner, it was a good case for bail even for an adult accused. The petitioner is a

juvenile declared by the Juvenile Justice Board and both the courts below have erred in not appreciating that bail to a juvenile, under the scheme of the

Act, is a rule irrespective of the nature and seriousness of the allegation against the juvenile.

His further contention is that the finding of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court that the petitioner would go into association of

the criminal associates is based on conjectures and surmises without any positive evidence on the record.

I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no overt act alleged against the petitioner. There was no material

before the Juvenile Justice Board or the lower appellate court that in the event of release, the petitioner would go in the association of known

criminals. Only on the basis of criminal antecedents, the petitioner cannot be put under preventive detention. Hence, the impugned orders, passed by

the Juvenile Justice Board and the lower Appellate Court, stand hereby set aside and this application is allowed.

Let the petitioner above named be released, at once, on furnishing surety bond by either of the parents of the petitioner to the effect that he/she

would maintain proper upkeep the petitioner and shall fully cooperate in the inquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board.