Dismissed

Tinku Kr Yadav Alias Tinku Kumar Alias Tinku Umar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC24 Aug 2022Cr.Rev./240/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 240 of 2022, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's application for bail. The petitioner, a juvenile, challenged the rejection orders from the Juvenile Justice Board and the Sessions Judge regarding alleged offences under Sections 302/34 IPC involving the assault and death of the informant's mother. The court declined bail.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

Tinku Kr Yadav Alias Tinku Kumar Alias Tinku… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 240 of 2022

¶2

….

¶3

Tinku Kr. Yadav @ Tinku Kumar @ Tinku Umar … Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Party

¶5

-----

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶7

-----

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.

¶9

…. .

¶10

09/24.08.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶11

2. The Criminal Revision No. 240 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.02.2022 passed in Criminal Juvenile Bail Appeal No. 05 of 2022 by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Children’s Court, Deoghar by which learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, Children’s Court, Deoghar has rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar in connection with Deoghar (Town) P. S. Case No. 569 of 2021 corresponding to G. R. N o. 273 of 2022 [Enquiry No. 175 of 2022] for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, by which prayer for bail of the juvenile-petitioner was rejected.

¶12

As per the FIR, some unknown are alleged to have assaulted the mother of the informant, due to which she was seriously injured and taken to the hospital in Deoghar where she died.

¶13

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the juvenile-petitioner is innocent. It is submitted that the petitioner is a juvenile. It is submitted that the juvenile-petitioner is not named in the FIR. It has been submitted that the name of the

¶14

-2-

¶15

juvenile-petitioner has been transpired on the basis of confessional statement of juvenile co-accused Sneha Kumari. It is submitted that father of the petitioner is ready to take custody and proper care of the juvenile-petitioner. It is further submitted that confessional statement is not admissible in law. It is submitted that the petitioner is a student of Class-X. It is submitted that the juvenile-petitioner is in custody since 17.11.2021 and as such, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail and has submitted that the juvenile –petitioner has confessed his guilt at para-35 of the case diary. It is submitted that the mother of the informant has died due to assault of the juvenile-petitioner and another juvenile Sneha Kumari. It is submitted that there was love affair between this juvenilepetitioner and the other juvenile-Sneha Kumari and both had concealed the matter of assault on the mother of the informant. 6. Perused the Lower Court records and considered the submissions of both the sides. 7. It transpires that FIR was lodged against unknown person. However, during course of investigation, the name of this juvenilepetitioner and other juvenile co-accused Sneha Kumari figured as Accused. It also transpires that thereafter confession of both of them i.e. this juvenile- petitioner and other co- juvenile Sneha Kumari have been recorded and both have confessed their guilt.

¶17

Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the juvenile-petitioner on bail at this stage and as such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage.

¶18

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶19

Kamlesh/

Tinku Kr Yadav Alias Tinku Kumar Alias Tinku Umar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinku Kr Yadav Alias Tinku Kumar Alias Tinku Umar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuj Chauhan Alias Anuj Kumar Chauhan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Babuji Hansda Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Shekhar Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhindar Nayak Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Shobhan Murmu And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sonu Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand