BABUL KUMAR @ RAGHAV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On account of refusal of grant of bail by the successive lower courts, petitioner has preferred instant revision with a relief to release him on bail.

(2.) In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been declared juvenile in conflict with law. Once an accused is declared juvenile then in that event, irrespective of nature of case, the nature of allegation, complicity of the petitioner needs, no relevance and the same should not be considered in a manner a kin to consideration of the prayer of an accused in regular bail petition in terms of Section 437 as well as 439 of the Cr.P.C. The grant of bail to a juvenile in conflict with law in terms of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act is a rule and the same could be denied only in exceptional circumstances wherein there happens to be probability of petitioner / accused falling under trap of known criminals, or will expose to mental, physical, psychological events as well as would defeat the ends of justice. Because of the fact that none of the ingredients are found fulfilled therefore, the successive courts should not have rejected the prayer. It has also been submitted that criminal antecedent does not come within the aforesaid ingredients. Therefore, refusal of bail on the ground of possessing criminal antecedent should not be considered as a right legal approach.

(3.) Now, elucidating the facts of the case, it has been submitted that petitioner does not happens to be an accused named in the case. Nothing has been recovered from his possession. After lapse of approximately three years while the petitioner was apprehended in connection with Case no.70 of 2012 and was under police lock up, informant and his sister approached there and got the petitioner along with three others identified. On this score, it has been submitted that identification of petitioner is not in accordance with law, moreover the identification happens to be three years after the occurrence therefore, mistaken identification could not be ruled out more particularly in the background of the fact that occurrence so alleged happens to be on the road at about 09:30 P.M. without having any source of identification. Neither the informant and his sister had occasion to see the petitioner before the occurrence nor after the occurrence and in the aforesaid background remembering the physical feature as well as face of miscreants for three consecutive years is nothing but clearly suggest a case of implantation. Also submitted that on the similar ground the other co-accused is already availing the privilege of bail right from the lower court itself.