Allowed

Angad Kumar Yadav Alias Angad Kumar Alias Angad Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Nov 2021Cr.Rev./115/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal revision to grant bail to a juvenile in conflict with law accused of rape. The court held that despite the Juvenile Justice Board being non-functional, the juvenile could be released on bail with conditions and monthly reporting by a Probation Officer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties and directed monthly reporting by Probation Officer.

Angad Kumar Yadav Alias Angad Kumar Alias Angad Yadav Vs… — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.115 of 2021

¶2

¶3

Angad Kumar Yadav @ Angad Kumar @ Angad Yadav

¶4

…. …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary, Adv. For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. ----

¶11

09/Dated: 02^nd November, 2021

¶12

1. The instant revision application has been filed against the order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned court of District & Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Godda in Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2020 by which the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by J.J. Board, Godda in Enquiry No.81 of 2020 in connection with Basantrai P.S. Case No.66 of 2020 and SPL (P) No.45 of 2020, for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 376(D) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The case is now pending in the court of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Godda.

¶13

2. The juvenile in conflict with law, is in observation home since 28.09.2020, has approached this Court for release through his elder brother, who is ready and willing to keep this juvenile under his custody with proper care. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the juvenile has been falsely implicated in this case and the case is not progressing since the Board is not functional. On above facts, prayer for bail has been made.

¶14

3. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶15

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, it appears that the juvenile is in custody since 28.09.2020. It is a case of committing rape upon a girl aged about 15 years. The age of the juvenile has been assessed about 16 to 18 years. Till date no order has been passed under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as the Juvenile Justice Board is not functional due to absence of Member.

¶16

5. The scheme of the J.J. Act, 2015 is very clear, if any juvenile in conflict with law, in the age group of 16-18 years, has committed any heinous crime, then after assessment of age, consideration has to be made under Section 15 of the J.J. Act, 2015 regarding the desirability of the Enquiry by the Board or the matter should be sent for trial before the Children’s Court. For this purpose, it has been mandated to take help of the experts for assessing the mental ability of the juvenile. The consideration can be made only by the Board.

¶17

Even after receipt of the above recommendation, the Children Court’s is supposed to re-assess the entire circumstances and to take decision as to whether the matter should be Enquired into by conducting enquiry or the matter should be tried by the Children’s Court.

¶18

Thus, the mandate is clear that the enquiry is rule and the trial is exception. The entire exercise is mandated to be performed within time frame.

¶19

6. Since, no decision has been taken as per section 15 of J.J. Act and as such the matter is being considered under Enquiry.

¶20

7. Considering the social investigation report and the mandate of Section 3 of the J.J. Act, the petitioner, above named, 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 learned Principal Magistrate, J.J. Board, Godda in Enquiry No.81 of 2020 in connection with Basantrai P.S. Case No.66 of 2020 and SPL (P) No.45 of 2020, subject to condition that one of the bailor must be the brother of the petitioner.

¶21

8. Further, concerned Probation Officer is directed to report, once in a month, to the Juvenile Justice Board, Godda regarding the up keeping of minor.

¶22

9. Accordingly, instant criminal revision is allowed.

¶23

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶24

Amar/-

¶25

Angad Kumar Yadav Alias Angad Kumar Alias Angad Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angad Kumar Yadav Alias Angad Kumar Alias Angad Yadav 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

Bhola Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anshu Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gajendra Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tribhuwan Rai Alias Tribhuwan Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Amrit Munda Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Nehal Ahmad Vs Shahin Tarannum