Md. Naushad vs The State of Jharkhand

Harish Chandra Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the Informant. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.4.2013 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 78 of 2013 by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi, in G.R. No. 6643 of 2012 arising out of Doranda P.S. Case No. 594 of 2012, rejecting the bail application of the juvenile petitioner, has been dismissed by the Appellate Court below.

Petitioner has been made accused for the offence u/s 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal code, in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No. 594 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 6643 of 2012. There is allegation against the petitioner to have repeatedly ravished the minor girl aged about nine years, in the absence of her parents, who had gone to Kolkata. When the parents returned back, the FIR was lodged.

Petitioner however, was found to be juvenile and he filed his application for bail, which was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board by order dated 21.2.2013 taking into consideration the Social Investigation Report of the petitioner, which showed that the petitioner had developed bad companion and has low moral value and also taking into consideration that the release of the petitioner would expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and his release shall also defeat the ends of justice. The appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Appellate Court below.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the Courts below have dismissed the bail application of the petitioner taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, which is against the dictates of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

From the impugned order, I find that the Courts below have taken into consideration the Social Investigation Report, which is absolutely against the petitioner, as also found that the petitioner''s release shall expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and it would also defeat the ends of justice. I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Courts below worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.