Niraj Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 May, 2015

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Niraj Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 May, 2015

Bench: Ravi Nath Verma

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       Cr. Revision No. 385 of 2015

Niraj Gope                               ....              Petitioner

                            Versus
State of Jharkhand               ...     Opposite party/Respondent


Coram :             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA


For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr. Mel Prakash Tirkey
For the opp. party/ respondent : Addl.P.P.

18.05.2015

The sole petitioner has preferred this revision application under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children ) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ) against the order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla in Cr. Appeal No. 06 of 2015 affirming the order dated 3.12.2014 passed by the Principal Magistrate,whereby prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected.

The prosecution case as it appears from the record relates to the offences under section 364 (A) IPC.

                       Learned    counsel        appearing    for    the
petitioner      submitted that         the petitioner was declared
juvenile by a competent court           whereafter bail petition was

filed on behalf of the petitioner before Juvenile Justice Board, but the same was rejected by said order dated 3.12.2014. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 06 of 2015 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla which was also dismissed by order dated 19.02.2015. 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 juvenile and that in a Full Bench judgement of the Patna High Curt, 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 has been languishing in jail custody since 31.7.2013.

Learned counsel appearing for the State has no serious objection.

                     Considering the submissions              of the
learned counsels,       the     period      in custody and the

undertaking given by the father of the petitioner that he will take care of his son and provide proper guidance, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection with Basia PS Case No. 42 of 2013 (GR No. 720 of 2013) on the conditions that the father of the petitioner shall produce the petitioner before the court below on each and every date till the conclusion of the inquiry and that one of the bailor must be the father of the petitioner.

With the above observation, this revision application is allowed. The order dated 3.12.2014 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in Basia PS Case No. 42 of 2013 (GR No. 720 of 2013 ) and the judgment dated 19.2.2015 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge Gumla, in Cr. Appeal No 6 of 2015 are hereby set aside.

Ambastha/-                                  ( R. N. Verma, J. )

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court