Suraj Kumar Ganjhu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 December, 2015

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Suraj Kumar Ganjhu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 December, 2015

Bench: Amitav K. Gupta

      IN     THE   HIGH   COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  ---
                       Cr.Rev.NO.1201 of 2015
                               ----
            Suraj Kumar Ganjhu, s/o Mahabir Ganjhu, r/o village Datia, P.O.P.S.
            Khunti, District- Khunti.                            ...Petitioner.
                                        Versus
           The State of Jharkhand                              ....... Opp.Party.
                                   ---
CORAM       : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
                                       ----
For the Petitioner : M/s. A.K.Ganjhu, Advocate.
For the State       : APP.

03/07.12.2015

This revision is directed against the order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Khunti in Cr.Appeal no.22/2015 whereby prayer for bail of the petitioner in G.R.No.223/2014(Khunti P.S.Case No.64/2014) registered for the offence under Sections 449,302,120(B)/34 IPC, 27 of Arms Act and under Section 17 C.L.A Act pending in the court of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti, was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be evident from the F.I.R that there is no allegation against the petitioner neither he has been named in the F.I.R. It is submitted that prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he has been identified in TIP and he resides in naxalite infested area and his release is likely to bring him into association with the extremists. It is argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated. That the court below failed to appreciate the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000 which mandates the release of a juvenile on bail and the bail can only be denied when there is reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring him into the association with any known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. That the father of the petitioner is ready and willing to give an undertaking to ensure proper supervision and good behaviour of the juvenile/petitioner.

3. Learned A.P.P. has opposed and submitted that it would be evident from the impugned order that witnesses in paras 84,85,95 and 97 of the case diary have named the petitioner and the informant has identified this petitioner in TIP. It is submitted that in the social investigation report it has has been stated that the petitioner resides in a naxalite infested area and his release may bring him into the association with the extremists.

4. Heard. Perused the materials on record and the F.I.R. The petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. In the impugned order witnesses have not made allegation of any overt-act against this petitioner. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti in G.R.No.223/2014(Khunti P.S.Case No.64/2014) subject to the conditions that (I) one of the bailors shall be father of the petitioner who shall give an undertaking that he shall ensure proper supervision and good behaviour of the petitioner; (ii) he shall produce the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice 2. Board as and when directed by the Board till the conclusion of the inquiry and shall produce the petitioner before the Probation Officer who shall submit a report to the Board regarding the conduct of the petitioner and if any adverse report is made by the Probation Officer the Board is at liberty to pass necessary order.

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.) Biswas./-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court