Sima Kumari And Anr vs State Of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners were declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gopalganj. However, prayer for bail of the petitioners was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on 05.02.2019 in Juvenile Inquiry Case No. 165 of 2018 arising out of Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 285 of 2018, a case under Sections 302, 201, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of the Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed by the learned lower appellate court on 25.02.2019 in Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 2019. Both the orders are under challenge in this application under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

According to FIR, when the informant did not find his brother on the bed in the morning at 03:00 a.m., he went to the house of Harendra Mahato. The informant did not find any one there. Thereafter, he heard some sound of talking and fleeing. Thereafter, informant along with two others proceeded towards that and saw in torch that about nine to ten persons were dragging to his brother after tying his neck with rope. The miscreants were identified which included the petitioners also. Thereafter, the miscreants fled away leaving the dead body there.

The Juvenile Justice Board refused the prayer for bail on the ground that in the event of release, there is chances that the petitioners would go to the company of the known criminals which would be against the moral, physical and psychological interest of the petitioners. The learned lower appellate court did not interfere with the order of the Juvenile Justice Board for the reason of seriousness of the allegation and the finding of the Juvenile Justice Board that there is chances of going into the association of criminals which would affect their future.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the scheme of the Act is clear that juveniles are entitled for bail irrespective of the seriousness of the allegation. Moreover, unless there is material on the record to substantiate as to who are the known criminals, in whose association, the juvenile would go in the event of release only conjectures and surmises would not suffice.

I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners.

The consistent judicial view is that seriousness of the allegation cannot be a ground to refuse bail to the juveniles. For the purpose of bail, the juveniles cannot be treated as institutionalized criminals and their prayer would be considered under the provision of Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the proviso to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is specific that satisfaction of the court must be based on material on the record regarding identity of the criminals in whose association, the juveniles would go in the event of release. The report of social investigation in respect of the petitioners does not show anything adverse to assume that in the event of release, there is chances that the juveniles would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger the proviso to Section 12 of the Act should be used for some purpose and not for gun.

Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, both the orders passed by both the courts below are hereby set aside and it is directed that the petitioners be released, at once, on furnishing of surety bond by their parents making declaration that they would keep the respective juveniles in their proper upkeep and shall cooperate with the inquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board.

With the aforesaid observation, this application stands allowed.