Jharkhand High Court
Imtiyaz 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. 1073 of 2015
Imtiyaz Ansari, S/o Abdul Karim, R/o Village-Raguniadih, P.O & P.S.-
Jainagar, Dist.-Koderma ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
---------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Rashmi Kumari, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
---------
02/Dated: 08/10/2015
The instant Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the order dated 30.06.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2015, whereby prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a case was registered under Section 376(C) of I.P.C and thereafter learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 376(2)(a) of I.P.C. It is argued that there is no ingredient to make out an offence under the aforesaid sections. It is further submitted that the petitioner is aged 17 years. That prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that in the Social Investigation Report it has been mentioned that there is lack of discipline and lack of control of the parents. It is argued that the petitioner is in custody since 09.09.2013 and Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2000 mandates the release on bail of a juvenile in conflict with law unless his release is likely to bring him in association with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. That the Board and Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the mandate of provisions of Section 12 and have declined the prayer for bail without assigning any cogent reason in terms of Section 12. It is contended that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 08.09.2013 but F.I.R was lodged on 09.09.2013 and is no where mentioned that the victim girl is a minor. It is also submitted that the parents of the petitioner are ready to give an undertaking to ensure proper care and supervision of the petitioner.
3. Learned A.P.P has opposed and submitted that the allegation is that the petitioner had committed rape upon the victim who is aged 14 years.
4. Heard. It is evident that the trial Court and appellate Court have failed to appreciate whether the provisions of Section 376(C) and 376 (2)
(a) are applicable or not in the present case. However this matter cannot be adjudicated at this stage and the liberty is always reserved with the petitioner to raise such an issue before the appropriate forum. Learned counsel's contention that the parents of the petitioner are willing to give an undertaking for ensuring proper care, well being and good behaviour of the petitioner is not acceptable, as it is evident that the petitioner had indulged in the crime while he was under the care and supervision of his parents. Considering the allegation against the petitioner that he committed rape of the girl aged 14 years as mentioned in the F.I.R, and the Social Investigation Report clearly shows that there is lack of discipline and control of parents over the petitioner, accordingly considering the gravity of the offence the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court.
5. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for nearly 2 years, the Board is directed to expedite the enquiry and conclude it preferably within four months from the date of this order, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the Board.
6. With the said direction the revision is, hereby, dismissed.
(Amitav K. Gupta, J.) Satayendra/