In Cr. Revision No. 296 of 2014, the High Court of Jharkland dismissed the revision petition of a juvenile petitioner seeking bail. The revision was against the dismissal of his appeal against the Juvenile Justice Board's refusal to grant bail in UAPA and CLA cases due to fears of association with known criminals.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 296 of 2014
Prakash Gope
...… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...… Opposite Party
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.
2/02.5.2014 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for
the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 15.3.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Cr. Appeal No.21 of 2014, whereby, the appeal filed against the order dated 25.2.2014 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, in Spt. G.R No.1072 of 2013 arising out of Gumla P.S case No.373 of 2013 rejecting the bail application of the juvenile-petitioner, has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below.
The petitioner has been made accused in Gumla P.S Case No.373 of 2013 corresponding to G.R No.1072 of 2013, for the offence under Sections 13 UAP Act and Section 17 of the CLA Act. The FIR shows that the petitioner was apprehended from a forest and mobile phones were recovered from him. It is alleged that the petitioner used to inform the extremists about the movement of the police. It is also alleged that his own brother is the Sub Zonal Commander of the extremists group. The petitioner, however, was declared to be juvenile and he filed his application for bail which was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, and the appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below, finding that the release of the petitioner on bail is likely to bring him in association with known criminal, who is his own brother in his family, which shall also expose him to psychological danger.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has accordingly, prayed for bail.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the fact that there is allegation against the petitioner of informing the movement of the police to the extremists group and his own brother being a known extremist, the finding given by the Courts below that the release of the petitioner shall bring him in association with known criminals, cannot be said to be without any basis.
I do not find any illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned order, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
( H. C. Mishra, J.)
BS/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the revision of the orders rejecting the bail application of a juvenile accused in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Cyber Laws (Amendment) Act ca
Prakash Gope
The State of Jharkhand
H. C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
