Allowed

Nurullah Ansari v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Oct 2014Cr.Rev./832/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against the rejection of bail, the High Court of Jharkhand reviewed the application of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The court granted bail to the petitioner under specific conditions, including a bond and sureties, considering the victim was a major and the petitioner had been in custody since 2013.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, one being the father, to satisfy the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Garhwa.

Nurullah Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 832 of 2013

¶2

Nurullah Ansari .… Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Chaturvedi For the State : A.P.P

¶6

¶7

06/Dated: 10/10/2014

¶8

The instant Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the order dated 22.7.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2013, whereby the bail of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short J.J Act) which mandates the release on bail of a juvenile in conflict with law and refusal of bail can only be in the circumstances where such release is likely to bring him in association of known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from the allegation made it is evident that the victim was a consenting party and also evident that she was a major at the time of the occurrence as per the statement of parents of the victim in the case diary; that the petitioner has remained in custody since 5.1.2013 and he has falsely implicated with an ulterior motive to pressurise him to marry the victim.

¶10

Learned counsel for the State assisted by Mr. B.K.Prasad, learned counsel for the informant, has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the juvenility of the petitioner has been challenged in Criminal Appeal no.8/14, which is pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that apart from the allegation of 376 of the IPC there is material on record that this petitioner along with other family members had given an undertaking before the panchayat that the marriage of the victim will be solemnized with the petitioner but after some time they started demanding a motorcycle and cash and a

¶11

sum of Rs.40,000/- has paid as part of the demanded amount which has been misappropriated by them; that the Police submitted chargesheet under Section 417, 376, 406/34 IPC and 3 /4 D.P.Act and petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Considering the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody since 5.1.2013 and victim girl was major and the relationship continued for more than a year, 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 Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Garhwa in connection with Meral P.S. Case No. 155 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1794 of 2012, on the condition that one of the surety will be the father of the petitioner, who shall file an undertaking that he shall ensure good behaviour and supervision of the petitioner and will also produce the petitioner before the Probation Officer and the Board as and when directed till conclusion of the enquiry and the Probationary Officer shall submit report to the Board regarding the conduct of the petitioner if so directed by the Board.

¶13

Accordingly, this revision is allowed and disposed of.

¶14

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)

¶15

Fahim/

Nurullah Ansari v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nurullah Ansari v. The State Of Jharkhand

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

Dr Ripu Sudan Prasad Alias R S Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Maithan Ekka Vs State of Jharkhand

Raghu Sahu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Birsa Munda and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Prabodh Paul Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Babuka Soren Vs The State Of Jharkhand