BISHAL KUMAR @ BISHAL MANJHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 21st March, 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, in Cr. Appeal No.6 of 2012. It appears that the said criminal appeal was filed against the order dated 3.3.2013 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi, in G.R. Case No.517 of 2011, by which the bail application of the juvenile petitioner was rejected. However, the learned Sessions Judge doubted the very order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in G.R. Case No.517 of 2011, declaring the petitioner to be a juvenile, and for the reasons detailed in the order, the learned Sessions Judge held that the petitioner was not a juvenile on the date of occurrence and has directed for sending him back to the Court of the Sessions Judge for facing the trial in the murder case. It appears from paragraph 5 of the impugned Judgment that the main case is pending for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, in as much as, the appeal was not filed against the order, by which the petitioner was declared to be a juvenile, rather the appeal was filed against the order dated 3.3.2013 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi, in G.R. Case No.517 of 2011, whereby the application for bail filed by the juvenile petitioner was dismissed. Learned Sessions Judge, however, entered into an enquiry and held that the petitioner was not a juvenile and has directed the Juvenile Justice Board to send the record of the petitioner to his court for facing the trial. Learned counsel further submitted that even the enquiry was not properly conducted by the learned Sessions Judge, as the procedure prescribed under the Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, has not been properly followed by the Court below. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and it is a fit case for release the petitioner on bail.