Dismissed

Himalya @ Prince Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Dec 2015CRR/597/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition against a bail rejection order by the Juvenile Justice Board was dismissed. The High Court held that despite a provisional recommendation by the Probation Officer for a chance at reform, granting bail to a habitual offender posed too great a risk under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; Juvenile Justice Board directed to expedite trial.

Himalya @ Prince Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

CRR No. 597 of 2015

¶4

Himalya @ Prince Verma S/o Shri Khilawan Verma Aged About 19 Years R/o Indra Colony, Police Station City Kotwali Post Office Baloda Bazar, Civil And Rev. Distt. Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali, Civil And Rev. Distt. Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner : Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Vivek Sharma GA

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

¶11

Order On Board

¶12

10/12/2015

¶13

This revision is against the order dated 28.5.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge, CBI) Raipur in Criminal Appeal No. 76/2015 affirming the order dated 5.5.2015 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mana, District Raipur in criminal case No. 121/2015 by which the application for release of the applicant was rejected.

¶14

According to the case of prosecution, on 13.7.2014 at about 9.40 pm the applicant had snatched the golden chain of one Asha Negi (PW-4) and after investigation on the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant Ramesh Kumar Negi (PW-1) the case under Section 392/34 was registered against him and co-accused persons.

¶15

As per the report submitted by the Probation Officer, the applicant is a habitual offender and he had committed similar offences on two earlier occasions also. The report at the same time also mentions that keeping in mind the interest of the accused, it would be proper if one

¶16

chance is given to him to join the streamline.

¶17

Though the report shows that the applicant deserves to be given one opportunity to join the streamline but keeping mind the fact that he is a habitual offender and was involved in two similar cases in past also and if released on bail, there appears to be every likelihood of his coming into association of known criminals or may be exposed to physical or psychological danger, it does not appear proper to release him bail and thereby the very object of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act would be defeated.

¶18

The revision is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

As the trial is already in progress, the concerned Juvenile Justice Board is directed to expedite the same.

Sd/-

(Pritinker Diwaker)

Judge

Jyotishi

Himalya @ Prince Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himalya @ Prince Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Choudhary Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Arun Meshram Vs Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation and Ors.

Lakhnu Verma Vs Gayatri Bai

Raja Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Balaram Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Poddar @ Rupesh Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh