Jharkhand High Court
Rinku Alias Tikara Alias Md Mazid Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 October, 2015
Author: Amitav K. Gupta
Bench: Amitav K. Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1022 of 2015
Rinku @ Tikara @ Md. Mazid Ansari, S/o Asgar Ali, R/o Dargi Chak, P.O-Rampur and
P.S.-Chauparan, Dist.-Hazaribagh ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
---------
02/Dated: 08/10/2015
The instant Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the order dated 01.08.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2015, whereby prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected.
Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel has submitted that the Board and appellate court have failed to consider and appreciate the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which mandates the release of juvenile in conflict with law on bail unless his release is likely to bring him in association of known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or defeats the ends of justice. It is argued by the learned senior counsel that the trial Court has refused the prayer for bail on the ground that release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice without assigning any reason and the appellate Court has refused the prayer for bail on the ground that his release bring him in contact with bad company. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner is ready to give an undertaking that she shall ensure proper care, supervision and good behaviour of the petitioner and ensure that he does not fail into any bad company.
On the above grounds it is urged that petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that allegation against the petitioner is that he had committed rape on a girl child, aged three years. The witnesses have supported the said allegation and charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 376/34 of the I.P.C and Section 6 of POCSO Act. It is further submitted that Social Investigation Report was not submitted by the Probation Officer.
Heard. No doubt Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Acts, 2000 mandates and prescribes the release on bail of juvenile in conflict with law but in the instant case, it is evident that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had committed rape on a three years old girl child. Thus, considering the gravity of the offence the release of the petitioner on bail, at this stage will not be in the interest of justice, accordingly the prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
The Board is directed to conclude the enquiry expeditiously preferably within five months, from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below.
With the said direction, this revision application stands dismissed.
(Amitav K. Gupta, J.) Satayendra/