SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jeemee Kumar Singh @ Ankit Kumar … vs The State Of Bihar on 10 October, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.861 of 2018

1. Jeemee Kumar Singh @ Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Krishna Singh, R/o
Bangara, P.S.- Mahrajganj, District- Siwan under the guardianship of father,
Krishna Singh, son of Late Bichari Singh.

…. …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar

…. …. Respondent

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Mouar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER

3 10-10-2018 This revision application has been filed against the

judgment dated 25.5.2018 passed by 1st Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Siwan in Cr.Appeal No. 33 of 2018 as well as the

order dated 9.5.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Siwan in

Juvenile Trial No. 73 of 2018, arising out of G.R.No. 88 of 2018,

Siwan Mahila P.S.Case No. 1 of 2018, whereby and whereunder

prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected.

Allegation against the petitioner is of committing rape

upon the prosecutrix and on that basis Siwan Mahila P.S.Case No.

01 of 2018 was registered under Sections 376(D) and 342 of the

Indian Penal Code and the offence is heinous in nature.

The petitioner was declared juvenile by the Juvenile

Justice Board (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the JJB’) and found

him aged 17 years 10 months 27 days at the time of occurrence on

an enquiry under Section 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter to be referred as
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.861 of 2018 (3) dt.10-10-2018

2/4
‘the Act’) and offence under Section 376 IPC comes under

definition of ‘Heinous Offence’. ‘Heinous Offence’ has been

defined under Section 2(33) of the Act, which provides as follows:

“2(33) “heinous offence” includes the
offences for which the minimum
punishment under the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860) or any other law for the time
being in force is imprisonment for seven
years or more.”

Section 14(5)(f) of the Act provides as follows :

“inquiry of heinous offence,-

(i) for child below the age of sixteen years
as on the date of commission of an offence
shall be disposed of by the Board under
clause (e);

(ii) for child above the age of sixteen years
as on the date of commission of an offence
shall be dealt with in the manner
prescribed under Section 15.”

Section 14 of the Act relates to inquiry by Board regarding

child in conflict with law.

Further Section 15 of the Act provides as follows :

“S.15. Preliminary assessment into
heinous offences by Board- (1) In case of a
heinous offence alleged to have been
committed by a child, who has completed
or is above the age of sixteen years, the
Board shall conduct a preliminary
assessment with regard to his mental and
physical capacity to commit such offence,
ability to understand the consequences of
the offence and the circumstances in which
he allegedly committed the offence, and
may pass an order in accordance with the
provisions of sub section (3) of Section 18 :
Provided that for such an assessment, the
Board may take the assistance of
experienced psychologists of psycho-social
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.861 of 2018 (3) dt.10-10-2018

3/4
workers or other experts.”

Further Section 18(3) of the Act provides as follows :

“Where the Board after preliminary
assessment under Section 15 pass an order
that there is a need for trial of the said
child as an adult, then the Board may
order transfer of the trial to the case to the
Children’s Court having jurisdiction to try
such offences.”

On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act

it appears that a child in conflict with law aged more than 16 years

is an accused in heinous offence as in the present case the JJB has

to conduct a preliminary assessment in terms of Section 15 of the

Act regarding ‘Preliminary assessment into heinous offences’ and

then pass an order under Section 18(3) of the Act that there is a

need for trial of the said child as an adult but in the present case

neither an order under Section 15 of the Act has been passed with

regard to preliminary assessment of the juvenile petitioner with

regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence,

ability to understand and consequences of the offence and the

circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence nor an

order under Section 18(3) of the Act has been passed, though the

juvenile petitioner is aged more than 16 years and is an accused

for the heinous offence, before passing an order on bail petition.

In such view of the matter, the impugned judgment dated

25.5.2018 passed by 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Siwan in Cr.Appeal No. 33 of 2018 as well as the impugned order
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.861 of 2018 (3) dt.10-10-2018

4/4
dated 9.5.2018 passed by the JJB, Siwan in Juvenile Trial No. 73

of 2018 cannot sustain. Hence they are set aside.

The matter is remitted back to the JJB, prior to consider

bail of the petitioner, for passing an order under Section 15 of the

Act as it is a mandatory provision and also for passing an order

under Section 18(3) of the Act within a period of 60 days from the

receipt of copy of this order.

Needless to say that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the

order of the JJB he may move before an appropriate court as

provided under the provisions of the Act.

With the above observation, this revision application is

disposed of.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)
spal/-

U T

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh