Deo Kumar Pandit @ Leda Pandit v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 394
Case journey
Linked proceedings
Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2013
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. S.P. Roy, Advocate A.P.P. 6/ 12.07.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 3.6.2013 passed by learned In-charge, Sessions Judge, Godda, in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2013, whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 21.5.2013 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Godda, in G.R. No. 808 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 Mahagama P.S. Case No. 90 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 808 of 2012, for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates to robbery and four persons are named in the FIR. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. The petitioner, however, was declared to be a juvenile and he filed his application for bail, which was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appeal filed against the same was also dismissed by learned Appellate Court below stating that the petitioner was identified in test identification parade. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Deo Kumar Pandit @ Leda Pandit, being a juvenile, 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 Juvenile Justice Board, Godda, in connection with G.R. No. 808 of 2012 arising out of Mahagama P.S. Case No. 90 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.