Nitish Kumar Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1417 Jhar

                                    -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             Cr. Revision No.878 of 2020

    Nitish Kumar Jha                                      ......       Petitioner

                             Versus
    The State of Jharkhand                                .....     Opp. Party
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the State : Mr. V. S. Sahay, A.P.P

---------

               th
04/Dated: 19        March, 2021

1. This revision is directed against the judgment/ order dated 28.07.2020, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge -I -cum- Special Judge, Dumka in Criminal Misc. Appeal No.04 of 2020, whereby the prayer for bail of the petitioner/ juvenile (in conflict with law) has been rejected in connection with Enquiry No.112 of 2020, arising out of Shikaripara P.S. Case No.97 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No.531 of 2019, registered under Sections 302/ 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner stands on similar footing to that of co-accused, Gyan Kumar Singh, who has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Revision No.685 of 2020 by order dated 10.02.2021.

It is submitted that save and except for the confessional statement of the petitioner, there is no material to show the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime.

3. Learned A.P.P has opposed and submitted that the case of the petitioner does not stand on same footing to that of co-accused, Gyan Kumar Singh, as against whom only one case was lodged whereas it would be evident from the impugned order that the petitioner is an accused in three other cases apart from the instant case.

4. Heard. On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that in the social investigation report adverse

remark has been made that the petitioner has been in contact with bad elements and there is lack of proper guardianship. The petitioner is an accused in three other cases.

In the given facts and circumstances the release of the petitioner, at this stage, will not be in the interest of justice as the petitioner needs proper counselling and rehabilitation.

5. The trial court/ Board is directed to expedite and conclude the enquiry, at the earliest, preferably within eight months from the date of receipt/ production of this order, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

6. With the aforesaid direction, the revision is, hereby, dismissed.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Chandan/-