The Patna High Court granted bail to a juvenile in a criminal case and reaffirmed that the involvement of the appellant in serious offence is no ground for denying bail to a juvenile.

The High Court was considering a Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant against the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the bail petition of the appellant.

The Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar asserted, “...ends of justice in the context of J.J. Act is totally different. The purpose and object of the J.J. Act is to reform and rehabilitate the juveniles and not to punish them.”

Advocate Bandana Sing represented the Appellant while APP Anita Kumari Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged in this case that when the informant and his father were cutting grass for fodder for their animals, co-villagers Vijay Pandey, Ajay Pandey, Uma Shankar Pandey, Vikramaditya Pandey, Manish Pandey, Rakesh Rai (appellant) and Sanjay Rai along with four unknown persons came to the place of occurrence with country-made pistols and guns in their hands. One of them stated that they had to kill the informant and his father because they were litigating in court about the land. Two of them fired at his father hitting him near the left ear and his back while one of them fired at the informant hitting near his neck. Rest persons also fired at the informant but he was able to escape from the firing.

The incident was witnessed by three persons who were also cutting grass. The informant’s father died at the place of occurrence itself. On the claim of the appellant to be juvenile, his case was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board and he was declared to be juvenile. The appellant moved for regular bail before the Children Court and the same was rejected by the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the matter reached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the Children Court rejected the bail petition of the appellant because he is actively involved in the alleged offence of murder and is also associated with criminal activities. It was also noticed by the Children Court that his release would bring him into association with other known criminals or expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice.

However, the Bench observed, “...as per the statutory provisions and binding judicial precedents, I find that involvement of the appellant in offence of serious nature is no ground for denying bail to a juvenile.”The Social Investigation Report did not show that the appellant was involved in any criminal activities before the present case. He was working as a labourer in Rajasthan on account of the poor condition of his family. No crime has been shown to have been committed by him or any members of his family prior to the present case.

As per the Bench, the Court below had been swayed by the seriousness of the alleged offence of murder. “As such, if keeping of the child in custody is helpful in his development and rehabilitation or protection, only then it could be said that release of the child would defeat the ends of justice. (Also refer to Abhishek Vs. State, 205 CriLJ (NOC) 115 (Delhi) and Manoj Vs. State (NCT of Delhi, 2006 CriLJ 4759). Moreover, the family is considered as the best and most desirable institution for ensuring welfare and rehabilitation of the child, if the family environment is conducive for the development of the child. In such situation, the release of the appellant on bail would serve and promote the ends of justice better than detaining the appellant in the observation home”, it said.

Thus, setting aside the impugned order, the Bench directed the appellant to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000 by his father and mother each subject to some additional conditions.

Cause Title: Rakesh Rai v. The State Of Bihar (Case No.:CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5154 of 2024)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates Bandana Sing, Sudhir Kumar Singh

State: APP Anita Kumari Singh

Click here to read/download Order


Justice Jitendra Kumar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.