RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Rashid Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
1. Applicant Rashid Rao is facing trial in FIR No. 100 of 2020, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC, registered at P.S. Patel Nagar, District Dehradun. He has sought anticipatory bail.
2. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the Fast Track Court/Special Judge, POCSO/Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun on 09.02.2022. The application has been rejected on the ground that since the applicant is a child in conflict with law (“CIL”) and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“the Act”) does not make any provision for anticipatory bail, the application cannot be allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the applicant has not been heard on merits. Bail includes anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail can be granted by the Juvenile Justice Board (“the JJ Board”). The provisions of anticipatory bail are in favour of an accused apprehending arrest, which is beneficial to preserve the right to life and liberty and denial of it to a CIL is not the intent of the legislature. Filing of charge-sheet also does not bar entertaining an anticipatory bail application. Learned counsel would sub
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.