Jharkhand High Court
Md. Aslam Hussain vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 1 October, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 839 of 2024
Md. Aslam Hussain, son of Md. Tamrej, resident of village: Ledatand, PO:
Madaidih, PS: Topchachi, District: Dhanbad, represented through his natural
guardian/ father, namely, Md. Tamrej, son of Abdul Jabbar Ansari, resident
of village: Ledatand, PO: Madaidih, District: Dhanbad.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Petitioner :- Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate;
Mr. R.K. Verma, Advocate;
Mr. S. Rahman, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP
...
07/ 01.10.2024 Both the counsels have appeared.
The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated
04.06.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih,
whereby, the Cr. Misc. Appeal No. 53 of 2024 has been dismissed affirming the
order dated 08.05.2024, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Giridih, in GR No. 1000 of 2024, corresponding to MCA No.
2790 of 2024, arising out of Nimiaghat PS Case No. 81 of 2023, for the alleged
offences under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25(1-b)a/ 26/
27/ 35 of the Arms Act, rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner-juvenile.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
allegation against the petitioner-juvenile, in brief, is that at certain point of time
a truck had broken down and three persons started stealing diesel from the
truck. On protest made by the driver, one person fired a shot at him. The
learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the
FIR and that no incriminating article has been recovered from him. The FIR
has been lodged against three persons but the police during course of
investigation arrested 5-6 persons including this petitioner on mere suspicion.
In course of proceeding, this petitioner was found to be a juvenile. The learned
counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent
except this case. The learned counsel has further submitted that many of the co-
accused persons, namely, Md Sarukh Ansari in BA No. 183 of 2024, Sahid
Akhtar @ Md Sahid Akhtar in BA No. 7355 of 2024, Rafique Ansari @ Md.
Rafiue Ansari in BA No. 1325 of 2024, Md. Saddam Ansari @ Saddam Ansari
in BA No. 787 of 2024, and Jhandu Kumar Mahto @ Jhandu Mahto in BA No.
4492 of 2024 have been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated
25.04.2024, 25.04.2024, 25.04.2024, 25.04.2024 and 08.07.2024 respectively,
therefore, seeks parity. Hence, the petitioner-juvenile may be granted bail.
I have perused the social investigation report, which was called for,
wherein it is pointed out that the juvenile in conflict with law has been leaving
the home for one year and residing in Bombay and there he is continuing his
studies and that in course of studies, there seems to be improvement in the
child. The father of the petitioner also assures to keep control on his son by
keeping his son in Bombay.
The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of
the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner-juvenile was apprehended
for committing the aforesaid offences and apparently from the records
available, it appears that the petitioner-juvenile is in association with other
criminals. The learned counsel has further submitted that the co-accused,
namely, Jhandu Kumar Mahto @ Jhandu Mahto, the main assailant, has
confessed that this petitioner was along with him at the time of incident, and,
therefore, the petitioner-juvenile may not be granted bail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned counsel for the State, noted the submissions, bearing the age of the
petitioner-juvenile in mind and also the recommendations as made by the
Probation Officer, it is prudent or proper to release the juvenile in conflict with
law on bail. Accordingly, present petitioner, named above, is ordered to be
released on bail, on executing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih, in GR No.
1000 of 2024, corresponding to MCA No. 2790 of 2024, arising out of
Nimiaghat PS Case No. 81 of 2023 subject to the conditions that the
petitioner shall remain present on each and every date of trial before the
learned Court below unless dispensed with by the learned Court below.
Thereafter further,
(i) father of the petitioner-juvenile will be one of the bailors;
(ii) father of the petitioner-juvenile will give assurance or
undertaking that he will take proper care of his child and also continue with
his studies and if possible, get him admitted in an institution with the help
of Secretary, DLSA, Dhanbad. The Secretary, DLSA, Dhanbad will also
take steps for counseling of the juvenile in conflict with law in every three
months' period and;
(iii) any other condition, the learned Court-below may think fit and
proper.
Accordingly, the judgment dated 04.06.2024, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih, in Cr. Misc. Appeal No. 53 of 2024 and
the order dated 08.05.2024, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih, in GR No. 1000 of 2024, corresponding to
MCA No. 2790 of 2024, arising out of Nimiaghat PS Case No. 81 of 2023 are
set aside.
Consequently, Cr. Revision No. 839 of 2024 is allowed and
disposed of.
S.B. (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
