Jharkhand High Court
Pinki Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 April, 2016
Author: R.N.Verma
Bench: Ravi Nath Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.Rev. No. 307 of 2016
Pinki Kumari represented through her father Lilu Oraon resident of village Danrkesha,
Ambatoli, P.O & P.S Bharno Dist. Gumla ..... .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand ..... .... Opp. Party
......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suchendra Prasad, Advocate
For the State : APP.
......
04/ 11.04.2016
The sole petitioner Pinki Kumari has moved this Court under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ( in short " the Act") against the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, II, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, which was rejected by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla vide order dated 05.07.2015, in G.R No. 835 of 2015, instituted under Sections 368,365,366,370,371 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 23/26 of the J.J. Act, Section 16 and 18 of the Inter State Migration Labour Act and 25 and 26 of Labour Bounded Act, has been affirmed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel representing the State.
The prosecution case relates to the offence under Sections 368,365,366,370,371 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 23/26 of the J.J. Act, Section 16 and 18 of the Inter State Migration Labour Act and 25 and 26 of Labour Bounded Act.
It appears from the record that the petitioner was declared juvenile by a competent court and thereafter a bail petition was filed by the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, which was rejected vide order dated 05.07.2016. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2016 before the Sessions Court, and the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below have failed to consider the mandate given under Section 12 of the Act wherein irrespective of the offence committed by the petitioner, bail has to be granted to a juvenile and that in a Full Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court, the ratio has been decided that grant of bail is a rule and denial or refusal to grant bail is an exception. It was also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 26.9.2015 and that the present revision application has been preferred by the petitioner -2- through his natural guardian (father) Lilu Oraon and referring paragraph 19 of the revision application, the learned counsel further submitted that parents of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner, if she is released on bail.
Learned counsel representing the State has no serious objection. Considering the submissions of the counsels, the period in custody and the mandate given under Section 12 of the Act, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Hence, the petitioner Nitesh Kr. @ Manish Kumar @ Suraj Kumar @ Suraj is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection with AHTU (Sisai) Gumla P.S Case No. 49 of 2015, corresponding to G.R No. 835 of 2015, with a condition that one of the the bailor must be the father or mother of the petitioner. The father or mother of the petitioner are directed to produce the petitioner before Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla on each and every date, fixed in the concerned case, till the conclusion of the inquiry.
Accordingly, this revision application is, hereby, allowed. The order dated 01.09.2015 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in G.R No. 835 of 2015 and the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2016 are, hereby, set aside.
(R.N.Verma, J.) Anjali/-