Allowed

Neeraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC15 Jan 2013CR. REV./1272/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision, the Patna High Court allowed the petition challenging the rejection of bail for a declared juvenile offender. The Court held that the lower court erred by ignoring the statutory presumption for bail release mandated by the Juvenile Justice Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, one being a parent providing an undertaking.

Neeraj Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1272 of 2012 (3) dt.15-01-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶3

Criminal Revision No.1272 of 2012

¶4

====================================================== Neeraj Kumar

¶5

.... .... Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 3 15-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶6

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 26.11.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge - I, Nawadah, in Criminal appeal (Juvenile) No. 100 of 2012, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge - I, Nawadah dismissed the aforesaid criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner affirming the order dated 25.09.2012 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for bail in connection with G.R. No. 193 of 2012, T.R. No. 270 of 2012 arising out of Hilsa P.S. Case No. 20 of 2012 registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 2012 preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 25.09.2012 by which the learned Juvenile

¶8

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1272 of 2012 (3) dt.15-01-2013

¶9

Justice Board in G.R. No. 193 of 2012, Tr. No. 270 of 2012 rejected the prayer of bail only on the ground that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by the In-charge Additional Sessions Judge- II on 21.06.2012 and also vide B.P. No. 434 of 2012. While at that time the petitioner was not declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner was declared juvenile on 24.09.2012 and thereafter prayer was made before the Juvenile Justice Board to release him on bail which has been rejected by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Nawadah.

¶10

On perusal of the impugned order whereby the criminal appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order dated 25.09.2012 rejecting the prayer of bail of petitioner passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Nawadah, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the petitioner’s criminal appeal taking into consideration that the prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected by the Incharge Additional Sessions Judge-II on 21.06.2012 vide B.P. No. 276 of 2012 and also vide B.P. No. 434 of 2012. It appears from the petition that the petitioner has been declared juvenile on 24.09.2012 and thereafter prayer was made to release him on bail on 25.09.2012 which was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board.

¶11

On bare perusal of provision of Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, it

¶12

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1272 of 2012 (3) dt.15-01-2013

¶13

appears that Juvenile in conflict with law shall be released on bail 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.

¶14

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this criminal revision is allowed and impugned Judgment is set aside. The petitioner, namely, Neeraj 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 learned Juvenile Justice, Board, Nawadah in G.R. No. 193 of 2012, Tr. No. 270 of 2012 arising out of Hisua P.S. Case No. 20 of 2012. 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.

¶15

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

¶16

Bhardwaj/-

Neeraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj 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.

Rajnish Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

The State of Bihar Vs Muneshwar Kumar and Anr.

The State of Bihar Vs Muneshwar Kumar and Ors.