Mahendra Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 376(2)(g)
Case journey
Linked proceedings
Built from judgments in the Courts & Cases corpus and the links detected in their text. Coverage is incomplete — earlier or later proceedings may be missing, so verify against the official record. How Case Journey works
Judgment
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA For the Petitioner For the State ------ : : ------ Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate & Mr. N.K. Pandey, Advocate A.P.P. 2/ 19.07.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 23.4.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2013, whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 2.4.2013 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bokaro, in G.R. No. 1262 of 2012, rejecting the bail application of the juvenile-petitioner, has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below. The petitioner has been made accused in Petarwar/Tenughat P.S. Case No. 131 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1262 of 2012, for the offence under Section 376 (2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. There is allegation against one Ranjan @ Rajan and his two unknown associates to have committed gang rape upon the victim. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the named accused had faced trial and he has been acquitted by the Trial Court. The judgment of the Trial Court has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Mahendra Yadav, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bokaro, in connection with G.R. No. 1262 of 2012 arising out of Petarwar/Tenughat P.S. Case No. 131 of 2012, with the condition that one of the bailers should be the father of the petitioner, and he shall give an undertaking in the Court below that he shall keep the juvenile-petitioner under his personal care and protection and no repetition of such offence shall be made by the petitioner. This application is accordingly, allowed. R.Kr. ( H. C. Mishra, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.