🖨️ Print / Download PDF

Niraj Thakur @ Niraj Kumar Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand

Case No: Criminal Rev. No. 461 of 2011

Date of Decision: Jan. 24, 2012

Acts Referred: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 — Section 12#Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 34, 366A, 376

Citation: (2012) 2 JCR 110

Hon'ble Judges: Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J

Bench: Single Bench

Advocate: J.S. Tripathy, for the Appellant;

Final Decision: Allowed

Translate: English | हिन्दी | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ಕನ್ನಡ | मराठी

Judgement

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

R.R. Prasad, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated

20.11.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa, in Cr. Appeal No. 50 of 2010, affirming the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by Juvenile

Justice Board, Garhwa in Manjhiaon P.S. Case No. 34 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 574 of 2010 wherein Juvenile Justice Board, Garhwa

rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

2. On an allegation that this petitioner alongwith other co-accused, kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant for the purpose of marrying her,

lodged a case which was registered as Manjhiaon P.S. Case No. 34 of 2010 u/s 366A of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, charge sheet was

submitted against this petitioner as well as two other accused, namely, Vikash Yadav and Tapeshwar Yadav u/s 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Since the petitioner was found juvenile, an application was filed before Juvenile Justice Board, Garhwa for release of the petitioner on bail, but

that was rejected and thereafter an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 50 of 2010 was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa, which

was rejected, after holding that the release of the petitioner would be detrimental to the interest of the society and the release would put him in

association of such type of person to commit the offence, but that finding recorded by the appellate Court does not seems to have been based on

any materials rather it seems to be conjecture and surmises on the part of the Court whereas Juvenile Justice Board, Garhwa, while rejecting the

prayer for bail, has not assigned any reason in terms of the proviso of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and,

therefore, both the orders are fit be set aside.

4. Accordingly, both the orders dated 11.10.2010 and 20.11.2010 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Garhwa and learned Sessions Judge,

Garhwa in Manjhiaon P.S. Case No. 34 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 574 of 2010 and Cr. Appeal No. 50 of 2010 respectively, are

hereby set aside.

5. Consequently, the petitioner above named 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 learned Juvenile Justice Board, Garhwa, in connection with Manjhiaon P.S. Case No. 34

of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 574 of 2010, on giving undertaking by the father of the petitioner that the petitioner would not be allowed to

come in association with the criminal. Thus, this application stands allowed.