Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Chitu Kumar Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2744 Jhar

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2744 Jhar
Judgement Date : 9 August, 2023

Jharkhand High Court
Chitu Kumar Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 August, 2023
                                        1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Cr. Revision No. 129 of 2021
                                      ....
         Chitu Kumar Rai                                       ...... Petitioner
                               Versus
         The State of Jharkhand                                ...... Opp. Party
                                   -----
         CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
                                   -----
         For the Petitioner           : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
                                      : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate
         For the State                : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, APP
                                             ......
           I.A. No. 2631 of 2023
07/09.08.2023    This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on

behalf of the petitioner under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 challenging the judgment dated 21.10.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2018 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jamtara has dismissed the Criminal Appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.01.2018 passed by Sri Vikram Anand, Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamtara in connection with G. R. No. 1189 of 2014 arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No.193 of 2014 and Enquiry Case No.10 of 2018 whereby the juvenile petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and directed the Juvenile petitioner to be detained in 'Observation Home' for three years.

2. I.A. No. 2631 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail, during the pendency of this Criminal Revision Application.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the juvenile petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and the other accused persons for assaulting the husband of the informant. It is submitted that the post-mortem report reveals that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. I is alleged that

the petitioner was found to be carrying Farsa and alleged to have assaulted the deceased by 'Farsa' but there is no cut injury on the head of the deceased. It is submitted that the witnesses examined before the court below have falsely implicated the petitioner juvenile. It is submitted that the petitioner has been directed to be detained in observation home for three years for none of his fault. It is submitted that the father of the juvenile petitioner is ready and willing to take proper care and custody of the juvenile petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was in custody from 19.03.2015 to 13.05.2015 and thereafter he is in custody since 03.12.2020 after dismissal of the criminal appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner and thus, he has remained in custody for around two years and ten months and almost completed the sentence and hence the juvenile petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer of bail. It is submitted that the petitioner is the main assailant in this case and has given Farsa blow on the head of the deceased. It is submitted that P.W-7 is the informant of this case, who has stated in her evidence that the petitioner has given Farsa blow on the head of the husband of the informant due to which he succumbed to injury.

It is submitted that E.W-1, E.W-2, E.W-3, E.W-5, E.W-6, E.W-8 namely Shyam Prasad Singh, Nageshwar Singh, Sonu Singh, Yashoda Devi, Birju Kumar Singh and Arti Devi have fully supported the case and they were also present at the place of occurrence. It is submitted that the E.W-7 namely Parbati Devi is the informant of this case and she has clearly stated that the petitioner has assaulted the deceased by Farsa on his head due to which he died. It is submitted that E.W-9 namely Dr. Dinesh Prasad is the Doctor and E.W-10 namely Rajendra Prasad Singh is the I.O of this case who have also supported the prosecution case regarding the death of the deceased and as such the prayer for bail may be rejected.

6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of both the sides.

7. It transpires that the FIR was lodged by the informant

namely Parbati Devi (i.e. E.W-7) on 21.12.2014 against ten accused persons including the juvenile petitioner for committing the murder of her husband by means of Lathi, Danda, Rod and other penetrating and sharp edged weapons.

8. It appears from the evidence of E.W-9 (i.e. post mortem report) that the injury was caused on the head of the deceased due to hard and blunt substance. He has found ante-mortem injury over the right parietal region of the scalp. In his opinion, cause of death is neurological shock due to brain injury by hard and blunt heavy linear object. However, during her evidence P.W-7 i.e. the informant has stated that the petitioner has caused injury on the head of the deceased by Farsa, however, it appears to have been contradicted by the post-mortem report.

9. Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for around two years and ten months, during pendency of this Criminal Revision, the juvenile petitioner-Chitu Kumar Rai is directed to be released on bail in care and supervision of his Natural Guardian and father namely Ram Kishan Rai on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamtara in connection with G. R. No. 1189 of 2014 arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No.193 of 2014 and Enquiry Case No.10 of 2018 subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be his own relative and one of the bailors must be the father of the juvenile petitioner and father of the petitioner must file an Undertaking before the learned Court below that the juvenile-petitioner will not get indulged in such type of crime in future again and the father of the juvenile-petitioner will submit his mobile number before the learned Court below, which he will always keep active and will not change it, during the pendency of this case, without prior permission of the Court.

10. Thus, I.A. No. 2631 of 2023 is allowed and stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

Saket/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter