Posted On by &filed under High Court, Jharkhand High Court.

Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kachhap vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 October, 2011
                                  Cr. Revision No. 498 of 2011
                    Anil Kachhap                             ...  ...           Petitioner
                                        ­V e r s u s­
                    The State of Jharkhand                   ...    ...             Opposite Party
                    For the Petitioner         : ­ Mr. Gaurav, Advocate.
                    For the State              : ­ Mr. T.N. Verma, APP.

This  revision  is   directed  against  the   order   dated   26.05.2011 
passed  by  learned  Sessions   Judge,  Simdega   in   Criminal   (Juvenile) 
Appeal     No.   07   of   2011,   whereby   the   bail   prayer   of   petitioner 

It is submitted by Sri Gaurav, learned counsel for the petitioner 
that petitioner is a juvenile and he is in custody from 20.09.2010. It 
is   further   submitted   that   other   co­accused,   who   are   major   and 
against whom there are similar allegations, were on bail. It is further 
submitted that Social Investigation Report (Annexure­2) shows that 
petitioner had no criminal antecedent and his family background is 
also good. It is further submitted that father of the petitioner is ready 
to execute bail bond and give and undertaking that he will take care 
of the petitioner. 

Sri T.N. Verma, learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State 
opposed bail prayer, but he has not disputed the Social Investigation 
Report submitted by Probation Officer, Simdega.  

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I allow this 
revision   and   set   aside   the   impugned   order   dated   26.05.2011. 
Petitioner  is  directed   to  be   released  on  bail  on  his   furnishing   bail 
bond of Rs. 10,000/­(Ten Thousand) with two sureties  of the like 
amount   each   to   the   satisfaction   of   the   Juvenile   Justice   Board, 
Simdega,   in   connection   with   T.   Tangar   P.S.   Case   No.   49   of   2010 
corresponding to G.R. No. 292 of 2010  subject to the condition that  
one of the bailer must be the father of petitioner.


    (Prashant Kumar, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

102 queries in 0.129 seconds.