Prasant Dwary @ Prashant ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 28 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 Cr. Rev. No. 504 of 2021
              Prasant Dwary @ Prashant Bharadwaj               ...           ... Petitioner
                                            Versus
              The State of Jharkhand                           ...           ...     Opp. Party
                                                ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

              For the Petitioner                 : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv.
              For the State                      : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
              For the informant                  : Mr. H.S. Pandey, Adv.
                                                ---

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

---

04/04.01.2022: Heard the parties.

The instant application has been filed against the judgment dated 22.07.2021 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Childrens' Court , Deoghar in Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No.17 of 2021, by which the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected, affirming the order dated 07.09.2020 passed by Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.137 of 2020 (Enquiry No.136 of 2020) registered for the offence under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner-juvenile in the age group of 16 to 18, is in custody since 25.07.2020, has approached this Court for release on bail through his mother, who is ready and willing to maintain and take proper care of the juvenile in her custody. The Offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been alleged against three known persons and some unknown persons. The name of this petitioner-juvenile has come on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused. Other co-accused has already been enlarged on bail. On the above facts, prayer for release has been made.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the case is under Enquiry and has not been sent up for trial.

Considering the period of custody, social investigation report and the mandate of Section 3 of the J.J. Act, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.137 of 2020, subject to condition that one of the bailor must be the mother of this petitioner.

Accordingly, instant criminal revision is allowed and disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Ravi/