Jharkhand High Court
Xxx vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 1 August, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 173 of 2024
XXX ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl. PP
---
05/01.08.2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. This criminal revision has been filed for the following relief:
"That in the instant application, the petitioner begs to challenge the
legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment dated 30.11.2023 passed
by Sri Rajendra Kumar Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge-I, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2023 whereby and
whereunder appeal preferred under section 101 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act against the order dated 04.07.2023
passed by the Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Jamshedpur in connection with Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 36 of 2023 was
dismissed thereby affirming the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the
Learned Principal Magistrate, J.J.B. Jamshedpur in connection with
Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 36 of 2023, registered under sections 363,364,34 of
the Indian Penal Code and wherein later, vide order dated 18.03.2023
sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code were added, wherein the bail
of the present juvenile was rejected and this case is now pending before the
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is not named in the F.I.R and the petitioner being between 16-18 years
of age, the records of the case of the petitioner has been transmitted to
the children court. He has submitted that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the case, and therefore, the petitioner may be
enlarged on bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and
has submitted that the petitioner is involved in the heinous offence and
on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner, the articles
used in the offence were recovered.
5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds
that the petitioner is alleged to be involved in heinous offence, and
being between 16-18 years on the date of commission of offence, his
case has been transmitted to children court. Although the petitioner is
not named in the F.I.R but the records reveal that on the basis of
confessional statement recoveries were made of the articles said to
have been used in the murder of the deceased.
6. This Court further finds that the social investigation report has
been considered by the court and the petitioner is said to be addicted
to take liquor, cigarettes etc. and is said to be beyond the control of his
parents. Having gone through the impugned order and considering the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner being alleged to have
been involved in heinous offence and also considering his social
investigation report, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner
on bail, hence this criminal revision is rejected.
7. However, the State is directed to cooperate with the expeditious
disposal of the case by promptly producing the witnesses.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court
concerned through FAX/email.
9. The name and other details of the petitioner be reflected as XXX
while uploading the order in the official web-site.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
