Allowed

Rajnish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC15 Jan 2013CR. REV./1040/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed a criminal revision against an order dismissing a juvenile's bail application. The court held that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, a juvenile must be released on bail unless there are specific risks of associating with criminals or endangering justice, which must be proven.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with sureties, including a parent undertaking.

Rajnish Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1040 of 2012 (5) dt.15-01-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1040 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== RAJNISH KUMAR, MINOR S/O SRI ANIL KUMAR, MINOR UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS NATURAL FATHER SRI AMIT KUMAR RESIDENT OF DADAR, P.SGOH, DISTRICTAURANGABAD. .... .... PETITIONER. VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER

¶4

5 15-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶5

The petitioner has filed this criminal revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, against the Judgment dated 20.06.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge- IV, Gaya in Criminal appeal (Juv.) No. 17 of 2012/ 36 of 2012, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya dismissed the aforesaid criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner affirming the order dated 15.05.2012 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for bail in connection with Civil Line P.S. Case No. 371 of 2011 arising out of Misc. Case No. 102 of 2012 registered under Section 364(A)/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there

¶7

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1040 of 2012 (5) dt.15-01-2013

¶8

is nothing on record about the presumption that if the petitioner is released then certainly after release he may come in association of known criminals. It is submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge erroneously dismissed the aforesaid criminal appeal affirming the order dated 15.05.2012 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, rejecting the prayer of bail of the petitioner who has been declared juvenile in Civil Lines P.S. case No. 371 of 2011. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused, namely, Golu Kumar @ Sunny Kumar @ Shivam Kumar, who has also been declared juvenile, has been allowed bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.09.2012 passed in Criminal Revision No. 957 of 2012, which would appear from Annexure – 3 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶9

On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had dismissed the aforesaid criminal appeal affirming the order dated 15.05.2012 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Misc. No. 102 of 2012 arriving at conclusion that there is every possibility to mix the petitioner with known criminal, if he is released on bail.

¶10

On bare perusal of provision of Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, it appears that Juvenile in conflict with law shall be released on bail

¶11

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1040 of 2012 (5) dt.15-01-2013

¶12

but the exception would be that he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of Justice. As such the impugned Judgment is unjustified and against the sprit of provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

¶13

Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.06.2012 is set aside. The petitioner, namely, Rajnish Kumar is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice, Board, Gaya in connection with Civil Lines P.S. Case No. 371 of 2011. Subject to the condition that out of two sureties one surety must be parent who will also give an undertaking to the effect that he/she will take care to the petitioner so that petitioner may not indulge in bad association.

¶14

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

¶15

Bhardwaj/-

Rajnish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

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

Md. Nishar @ Nishar Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Suresh Sharma Vs Lalita Devi and Anr.

Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Neeraj Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

The State of Bihar Vs Muneshwar Kumar and Anr.

The State of Bihar Vs Muneshwar Kumar and Ors.