Patna High CourtCR. REV./359/2017dismissed

Khazida Khatoon v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-07-11Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.359 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Khazida Khatoon, D/o Md. Abdul Mazid Resident of Village-Kamalpur, P.S.-Laukaha, District-Madhubani.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Md. Shamshad @ Shamshad Alam, Son o Md. Mukhtar @ Mukhtar Alam, Resident of Village-Kamalpur, P.S.-Laukaha, District-Madhubani. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The Opposite party No.2 was declared to be a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Madhubani. The Juvenile Justice Board, Madhubani had rejected his prayer for bail by order, dated 13.12.2016. His appeal preferred against the said order, dated 13.12.2016, came to be allowed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani by order, dated 11.01.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2016, which has been challenged in the present criminal revision application filed by the Informant.

I have perused the impugned order.

I find that the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani before allowing the appeal and granting release of Opposite party No.2 on bail has considered

materials in the case diary and social investigation report. The adverse comment in social investigation report has been found to be general in nature. It further appears that considering the nature of accusation, the appellate Court below has allowed the appeal preferred by Opposite party No.2 and granted his release on bail.

The said order cannot be said to be completely illegal or beyond jurisdiction requiring interference in revisional jurisdiction.

This application has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/- U