- (1.) HEARD the parties and perused the impugned order.
(2.) THE Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Ranchi, dismissed the appeal preferred by the revisionist, who admittedly is a juvenile as per the enquiry made with regard to his age. The, ground for dismissal of the appeal is that the allegation made against the petitioner is serious and if released,he will come in association of one Pappu Singh with whom he was already associated. The question to be answered in this revision is whether the appeal of a juvenile can be rejected on the ground that some of the suspected persons took the name of the petitioner in their confessional statement before the police.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , this was a case under Section 392, IPC, the FIR was against one person, nothing was recovered from his possession and he was not put on TIP. One suspect, Pappu Singh, who is not named in the FIR, is alleged to have made confessional statement that in the offence, this petitioner was also involved. The confession made before the police is no confession,but even if it is considered for the purpose of Juvenile Justice Act that this petitioner was known to Pappu Singh then one thing is established that Pappu Singh is already in custody and so if the petitioner is released, he cannot come in association again with at least till Pappu Singh is in jail. Therefore, the requirement of law as contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into the association of known criminal is not fulfilled and thus, the past association with a criminal, who is in jail, will not become ipso facto a ground that if the petitioner is released, he will again come in association of that criminal. On this point, there is illegality in the finding of the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner.;