The Jharkhand High Court rejected the granting of bail to a minor accused of kidnapping a minor girl and held that the release of the petitioner will bring him into association with criminals and will expose him to mental, moral, physical, and psychological danger.

Brief Facts:

The petitioner, a minor, booked under Section 366 A and Section 34 of IPC, for kidnapping a minor girl along with his friends was denied release by the Additional Sessions Judge and the same was challenged by the petitioner in the present criminal revision application.

Contentions of the Applicant:

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner and victim were acquainted with each other and were friends before. It was further contended that the FIR was filed after a lapse of thirteen days and there was no criminal history against the petitioner and the social investigation report also did not state any adverse remark against the petitioner and the petitioner thus deserves to be enlarged on bail.   

Contentions of the Respondent:

The learned counsel appearing for the state argued that the petitioner was involved in the kidnapping of a minor girl, which is a heinous offence and the victim, during the examination of the case fully supported the case of the prosecution and thus, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

Observations of the Court:

The court stated that the petitioner was a child in conflict with the law and was found to be involved in a heinous offence of kidnapping of a minor girl. It was further stated that all the examined witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution and the victim, who was exploited by the petitioner until she was rescued had also supported the case of the prosecution.

The court observed that the release of the petitioner will bring him into association with criminals and will expose him to mental, moral, physical and psychological danger thus it is necessary that the petitioner be kept in an observation home and be given proper counselling.

The decision of the Court:

The court rejected the criminal revision filed, upheld the impugned order and concluded that the petitioner is not fit to be granted bail.

Case Title: Ritik Kumar Sah @ Ritik Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navneet Kumar

Case No.: Cr. Revision No.263 of 2023

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Durga C. Mishra

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Someshwar Roy

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Kritika