Jharkhand High Court
Komal Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.818 of 2022
---------
Komal Jha, aged about 17 years, daughter of Sri Sushil Kumar Jha,
represented through her Father and Natural Guardian Sri Sushil Kumar
Jha, aged about 42 years, Son of Ram Narayan Jha, resident of Ward
No.08, Basukinath P.O and P.S. Jarmundi, District-Dumka
... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv.
---------
Order No.07 Dated 13th October, 2022
Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Suraj Singh,
learned counsel for the Informant.
2. The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf
of the Juvenile-petitioner under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for setting aside the judgment dated
13.07.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2022 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Dumka, by which, the
said Criminal Appeal has been dismissed by rejecting the bail of the
petitioner thereby, affirming the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by Principal
Magistrate Juvenile, Justice Board, Dumka in connection with Dumka (T)
P.S. Case No.176 of 2021, corresponding to E.N. No.153 of 2022 instituted
for the offences under Sections 363, 366A 302, 201, 120B of the IPC.
3. The Informant has alleged in the FIR that her daughter had left the
hostel for coming to the residence but she could not reach and hence, the
Informant had searched her and then, he learnt that she was taken away by
some unknown boy on the motorcycle by inducing her. It is also alleged
that the petitioner, who was residing in the hostel with the deceased, had
quarreled with her and threated her of dire consequences and she had left
her on the half way.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is a Juvenile and has committed no offence. It is further submitted
that the petitioner is named in the FIR merely on suspicion. It is further
submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. It is further
submitted that save and except the confessional statements of petitioner,
there is no evidence against this petitioner for committing the murder of the
deceased. It is further submitted that the father of this juvenile petitioner is
ready for a complete supervision and proper care in her custody. It is further
submitted that co-accused namely, Reyaz Ansari @ Rony @ Riyaz Ansari
has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A
No.4188 of 2022 vide order dated 06.05.2022. It is further submitted that
the petitioner was granted provisional bail for a period of two months by
the learned Court below i.e, from 08.03.2022 to 22.04.2022 for giving
examination. It is further submitted that the juvenile-petitioner is in custody
since 21.07.2021 and hence, she may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail
and has submitted that that the petitioner is named in the FIR. It is further
submitted that the petitioner had confessed her guilt before the Police for
pressing the mouth and nose of the deceased girl along with co-accused
Reyaz Ansari @ Rony @ Riyaz Ansari with the help of Sachin Kumar and
due to which, she had died.
6. Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the
submission of the learned counsel for the State, has further submitted that
the petitioner is also one of the assailants of the deceased girl. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has pressed the mouth and nose of the deceased
girl and due to which, she died. It is further submitted that co-accused
persons namely, Sachin Kumar and Reyaz Ansari @ Rony @ Riyaz Ansari
had thrashed and assaulted the deceased and committed the murder of the
deceased and co-accsued person namely, Reyaz Ansari @ Rony @ Riyaz
Ansari had also played main role, but he has already been granted bail by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A No.4188 of 2022 vide order
dated 06.05.2022. It is further submitted that however the bail of co-
accused person namely, Sachin Kumar Yadav has been rejected by
the another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A No.76 of 2022 vide
order dated 10.03.2022. It is further submitted that there are several call
details of all the accused persons including this juvenile petitioner which
has come in the case diary and there is CCTV Footage which clearly shows
that the petitioner had accompanied with the deceased girl to a certain
distance while she was going to her residence and hence her prayer for bail
may be rejected.
7. Perused the Lower Court Records and order passed by Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court and considered the submission made by the parties.
8. It appears that the petitioner is named in the FIR. It also transpires
that during the course of investigation, the police has arrested this petitioner
and recorded her confessional statement and also recorded the confessional
statements of other co-accused persons namely, Reyaz Ansari @ Rony @
Riyaz Ansari and Sachin Kumar Yadav. It would appear from the
confessional statement of co-accused persons and this petitioner that the
petitioner is alleged to have pressed the neck and mouth of the deceased
girl whereas, co-accused person namely, Reyaz Ansari @ Rony @ Riyaz
Ansari is said to have thrashed the deceased on bed and assaulted her and
had sat over her body and who was also implicated along with this
petitioner in committing murder of the deceased, although, he was in touch
with the deceased. It is well settled that confessional statements is not
admissible in evidence.
9. It also appears that co-accused person namely, Sachin Kumar Yadav
and Reyaz Ansari @ Rony @ Riyaz Ansari are alleged to have taken away
the dead body of the deceased girl and concealed the same in the ditch and
had destroyed the mobile and the bag of the deceased. From perusal of the
records and case dairy, it would appear that the accused persons were in
contact with each other prior to the occurrence.
10. It also appears from the confessional statements of co-accused
persons namely, Sachin Kumar Yadav and Reyaz Ansari @ Rony @ Riyaz
Ansari and this petitioner that the deceased had taken photographs of this
juvenile petitioner without having her any clothes on two different
occasions while she was in bathroom and also while she was sleeping and
deceased had threatened her to made it viral,. The petitioner is alleged to
have taken the recourse to such an act which ought to have been avoided
by her and whose privacy was said to be in danger. It also appears that on
the basis of the confessional statements of co-accused persons Sachin
Kumar Mahto and Reyaz Ansari @ Rony @ Riyaz Ansari that the dead
body of the deceased was recovered on 19.07.2021 and some articles
including one spade used in concealing the dead body were also recovered
which have been mentioned at paragraph Nos. 123, 129, 131 and 132 of the
case diary at the instance and disclosure of both Sachin Kumar Yadav and
Reyaz Ansari @ Rony @ Riyaz Ansari.
11. Considering the age of the victim girl and also considering grant of
bail to co-accused person namely, Reyaz Ansari @ Rony @ Riyaz Ansari
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court ( as mentioned above) and on the
facts and in the circumstances of this case, the juvenile-petitioner namely,
Komal Jha, is directed to be released on bail and in custody of her Father
namely, Sushil Kumar Jha on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Dumka in
connection with Dumka (T) P.S. Case No.176 of 2021, corresponding to
E.N. No.153 of 2022, subject to the condition that the both the bailors must
be own relative of the juvenile petitioner and Father shall be one of the the
bailors of the juvenile petitioner, with a further condition that the Father of
the juvenile-petitioner shall submit his self-attested Aadhar Card and
Mobile Number before the learned Court below and which shall not be
changed till disposal of this case and the Father of the juvenile-petitioner
shall produce the juvenile-petitioner before the learned court below as and
when required and the juvenile petitioner and her family members shall not
threat or tamper and induce the prosecution witnesses or the family
members of the informant during the pendency of the trial and they shall
not leave the jurisdiction of District Dumka without prior permission of the
learned Court below.
12. Thus, in view of above judgment dated 13.07.2022 passed in
Criminal Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2022 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Dumka, and the order dated 18.05.2022
passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dumka in
connection with Dumka (T) P.S. Case No.176 of 2021, corresponding to
E.N. No.153 of 2022 are set-aside in the interest of justice.
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision No.818 of 2022 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Raja/-
