Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Manish Kumar. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.

Manish Kumar. vs The State of Jharkhand.

Type Court Judgment Court Gujarat Decided Jan 31, 2011
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/916444

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Gujarat High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Cr. Rev. No. 255 of 2011.
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[P. SATHASIVAM ; Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] -Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Section 21 - Constitution of State Human Rights Commission -- The appellant joined on the said post on 1.7.2006. APPELLANT) SECTION 21: been a Judge of a High Court or (c) one member who is, or has District Judge in the State with a be...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act - Sections 53, 12; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 376, 354, 306, 509, 511 Read With Section 120B; Information and Technology (Amendment)...

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manish Kumar.

Advocate Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv.

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand.

Legal References

Acts
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act - Sections 53, 12; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 376, 354, 306, 509, 511 Read With Section 120B; Information and Technology (Amendment) Act - Sections 66A, 66B, 67A, 67B, 72

Excerpt

[p. sathasivam ; dr. b. s. chauhan, jj.] -protection of human rights act, 1993 - section 21 - constitution of state human rights commission -- the appellant joined on the said post on 1.7.2006. appellant) section 21: been a judge of a high court or (c) one member who is, or has district judge in the state with a been, a district judge in that minimum of seven years state. experience as district judge; section 23: section 26: [terms and conditions of service of members of the state service of chairperson and commission - the salaries and members of the state allowances payable to, and other commission- state government. (i) article 236(a) of the constitution of india reads as under: "(a) the expression "district judge" includes judge of a city civil court, additional district judge, joint district judge, assistant district judge, chief judge of a small cause court, chief presidency magistrate, additional chief presidency magistrate, sessions judge, additional sessions judge and assistant sessions judge". (a) district and sessions judges, and (b) additional district and sessions judges. (see: mosammat bibi sayeeda & ors. etc. v. state of bihar & ors. etc., air 1996 sc 1936). & ors. (vide: roshan lal tandon v. union of india & ors., air 1967 sc 1889; state of mysore v. krishna murthy & ors., air 1973 sc 1146; raj kumar v. union of india & ors., air 1975 sc 1116; ex-capt. (vide: prabodh verma & ors. etc. etc. v. state of u.p. & ors. etc., air 1985 sc 167; ishwar singh & ors. v. kuldip singh & ors., 1995 (supp) 1 scc 179; tridip kumar dingal & ors. v. state of west bengal & ors., (2009) 1 scc 768; state of assam v union of india & ors., (2010) 10 scc 408; and public service commission, uttaranchal v. mamta bisht & ors., air 2010 sc 2613)......of known criminals. the learned sessions judge also refused his prayer confirming the observation made by the principal judge.4. i find from perusal of the f.i.r. that the only allegation against the petitioner was that the principal accused had transferred the nude photograph of the girl on the cell phone of the petitioner but no cell phone bearing nude 2. photograph could be recovered from the possession of the petitioner and i further find that the case of the petitioner does not come within the proviso of section 12 of the juvenile justice ( care and protection of children) act, 2000 so as to deny the statutory right of the petitioner of his bail wherein his bail has been made rule and refusal exception.5. in the circumstances, the petitioner manish kumar is directed to be released on executing bail bond of rs. 10,000/- ( ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the juvenile justice board, hazaribag in connection with rajrappa p.s. case no. 70 of 2010, corresponding to g.r.no.2980 of 2010 with the conditions that the parents would be his bailers, who would take care of him and produce the petitioner before the j.j.board preferably in the 1st week of each month till the conclusion of the enquiry or to the satisfaction of the j.j.board. this criminal revision is accordingly allowed.

Full Judgment

1. The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order impugned dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2010 by which the prayer for bail made by the petitioner-juvenile was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribag on 09.12.2010 was affirmed in Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 70 of 2010, corresponding to G.R.No. 2980 of 2010 and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner was arrested but he was declared juvenile after determination of his age by the Juvenile Justice Board on 18.12.2010. The F.I.R. was lodged against as many as 11 named accused persons including the petitioner-juvenile for the alleged offence under Sections 376/354/306/509/511 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 66A/66B/67A/67B and 72 of the the Information and Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.

2. Learned Counsel Mr. Nilesh Kumar submitted that no specific allegation was attributed against the petitioner Manish Kumar much less the offence alleged under Sections 376/354/306/509/511 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The only allegation against the petitioner Manish Kumar was that when the principal accused Deepak Mahto, Shayam Mahto and Rishu Singh failed in their mission to commit gang rape, to which the daughter of the informant declined, the nude photograph which was taken by them on their cell phone was transferred to the cell phone of the other boys just to impeach the character of the girl.

3. It would be relevant to mention that the other accused Prashant Kumar and Rishu Singh againt whom there was serious allegation, have been admitted to bail by a Bench of this Court in B.A.No.774 of 2011 on 07.03.2011 and B.A.No. 726 of 2011 on 10.03.2011 respectively but the bail of the petitioner was denied by the Principal Judge only on the ground that his release on bail would bring him in association of known criminals. The learned Sessions Judge also refused his prayer confirming the observation made by the Principal Judge.

4. I find from perusal of the F.I.R. that the only allegation against the petitioner was that the principal accused had transferred the nude photograph of the girl on the cell phone of the petitioner but no cell phone bearing nude 2. photograph could be recovered from the possession of the petitioner and I further find that the case of the petitioner does not come within the proviso of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 so as to deny the statutory right of the petitioner of his bail wherein his bail has been made rule and refusal exception.

5. In the circumstances, the petitioner Manish Kumar is directed to be released on executing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- ( Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribag in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 70 of 2010, corresponding to G.R.No.2980 of 2010 with the conditions that the parents would be his bailers, who would take care of him and produce the petitioner before the J.J.Board preferably in the 1st week of each month till the conclusion of the enquiry or to the satisfaction of the J.J.Board. This Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial