MANISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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. 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.