Single judge allowed criminal revision, set aside impugned order dismissing appeal, and granted bail to juvenile accused in a theft case under Section 392 IPC, with specific conditions and probation reporting.
Petitioner released on bail Rs. 10,000 with two sureties; father to be a surety; Probation Officer to report status quarterly.
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 Criminal Revision No.255 of 2021
---
Rupesh Kumar Yadav @ Rupesh Yadav … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Shankar Dayal, Adv. For the State : Mr. Pradeep Kr. Verma, A.P.P.
---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
---
04/22.06.2021: The instant revision application has been filed against the order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)-cumChildren’s Court, Palamau at Daltonganj, dismissing the Cr. Appeal No.07 of 2021 and upholding the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Lesliganj P.S. Case No.125 of 2019 registered u/s Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Now, the case is pending in the court of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Palamau at Daltonganj.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been remanded in this case on 01.12.2020 and since then he is in custody. The FIR has been lodged against unknown. The investigation is complete and the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the trial. The petitioner was 15 year old at the time of incident. It has been stated that one of the co-accused namely Rabindra Yadav @ Rabinder Yadav has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 04.05.2021 passed in B.A. No.3938 of 2021. It has further been submitted that recovery of a mobile phone has been shown, but bonafidely it has been purchased by the petitioner, not knowing that it is a stolen property. Further, learned counsel submits that the pairwikar is the father of the petitioner and he is ready and willing for upkeeping of the petitioner. On above arguments, prayer for bail has been made.
Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
2
Considering the nature of allegation and the age of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be released in favour of the father of the petitioner who is the pairwikar in this case. Accordingly, 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 the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Lesliganj P.S. Case No.125 of 2019, subject to condition that one of the bailors must be the father of the petitioner.
Further, concerned Probation Officer is directed to report, once in three months, to the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Palamau at Daltonganj regarding the upkeeping of the petitioner.
Accordingly, instant criminal revision being Criminal Revision No.255 of 2021 is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)-cum-Children’s Court, Palamau at Daltonganj is, hereby, set aside.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, a 15-year-old accused in possession of an alleged stolen mobile phone with family cooperation, is entitled to bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rupesh Kumar Yadav
The State of Jharkhand
RAJESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
