Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court, in Criminal Revision No. 134 of 2019, dismissed a juvenile’s plea for regular bail in a murder case, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and the juvenile’s potential maturity to understand and commit such a crime. The case stems from a 2017 incident where the petitioner, along with a co-accused, was alleged to have murdered a boy after luring him out late at night.
According to the FIR, the deceased was taken from his home by the petitioner and the co-accused. When he did not return, a search was conducted, leading to the discovery of his blood-soaked body behind a cinema hall. The investigation revealed multiple incised wounds on the body, and a blood-stained dagger was recovered from the petitioner’s residence.
Initially, the petitioner, who was 16 years old at the time of the incident, was placed under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Justice Board. The Board, however, after a preliminary assessment, concluded that the juvenile possessed sufficient mental and physical capacity to understand the consequences of his actions. Based on this, the case was transferred to the Children’s Court for trial as an adult under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the juvenile was falsely implicated due to enmity and had no direct involvement in the crime. They cited a 2017 Patna High Court judgment highlighting that bail to a juvenile can only be denied if release would likely associate the juvenile with criminals, expose them to danger, or defeat the ends of justice.
However, the High Court noted that the police had found prima facie evidence supporting the petitioner’s involvement, including his own confessional statement and corroborating witness accounts. The petitioner had allegedly admitted to stabbing the victim alongside the co-accused. Furthermore, a previous criminal record under Section 379 IPC was cited against him.
Social and behavioral reports from the Observation Home were considered, which indicated that while the juvenile participated in various activities and exhibited good behavior, the severity of the offense and the existing criminal background outweighed the reformative aspects at this stage.
The Court emphasized that the release of the petitioner could lead to revenge actions, potential reoffending, and could compromise justice. Therefore, the petition for bail was dismissed, but the trial court was directed to expedite the case, preferably within nine months.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment underlines a critical principle in juvenile justice: while rehabilitation is a core goal, the nature and gravity of the offense can warrant a trial as an adult. The Court balanced reformative justice with the need to protect societal interest and uphold the rule of law. It sends a clear message that juvenile status does not guarantee bail in cases involving heinous crimes like murder.
For the general public and legal fraternity, it affirms that juvenile offenders may be tried as adults when the court finds them mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions, especially in cases involving violent crimes.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether a juvenile accused of murder should be released on bail?
- No, considering the gravity of the offense and prima facie evidence, bail was denied.
- Can a juvenile be tried as an adult under the JJ Act, 2015?
- Yes, the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children’s Court found the petitioner mentally and physically capable of understanding the nature of the crime.
- Does the petitioner’s behavior in the Observation Home justify bail?
- No, despite positive behavior, the serious nature of the alleged offense and potential for further criminal behavior warranted continued detention.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- Pramendra Chaudhary @ Parmendra Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar, 2017(2) PCCR 238 (PHC)
Case Title
Hamid Ahmad @ Rumani vs. The State of Bihar
Case Number
Criminal Revision No.134 of 2019
Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 275
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha (For the Petitioner)
- Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh (For the State)
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NyMxMzQjMjAxOSMxI04=-nxcnILAwCQc=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
