Jharkhand High Court
Manish Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 25 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 271 of 2024
Manish Kumar, aged about 15 years , son of Ram Kamal Ram,
Resident of Village-Khanichak, P.O.-Devanchak, P.S. -Meharma,
District-Godda, represented through his natural guardian and father
namely Ram Kamal Ram aged about 51 years, Son of Late Bhijnath
Prasad Ram Resident of Village -Khanichak, P.O. -Devanchak,
P.S.- Meharma, District -Godda ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
.....
Order No. 12/ Dated:25.02.2025
This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children Act, 2015) by challenging the judgment
dated 15.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2024 by
Sri Janardan Singh, then learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-
Godda by which learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- Godda has
dismissed the appeal filed by the juvenile -petitioner and rejected
the prayer for bail of the juvenile petitioner and affirmed the order
dated 09.01.2024 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Godda in connection with Thakurganti P. S. Case
No. 60 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No. 85 of 2024 for the
offences under sections 364 and 34 of the I.P.C. and later on added
under sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C..
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Courts
below are illegal and arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It
is submitted that the petitioner is a juvenile and committed no
offence. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.
It is submitted that the petitioner's name transpired only on
confession of the Co- accused Rohit Kumar Ram, who is the
brother of the juvenile-petitioner. It is submitted that the dead body
of the deceased Sanyukta Devi was recovered on the confession of
Co-accused Rohit Kumar Ram. It is submitted that petitioner is in
custody since 07.11.2023 and hence, the juvenile-petitioner may
be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the
juvenile-petitioner has actively connived with the co-accused
Rohit Kumar Ram and hence, the prayer for bail of this juvenile
petitioner may be rejected.
5. Perused the F.I.R., Lower Court Records of this case,
Social Investigation Report of this juvenile-petitioner and
considered the submission of both the sides.
6. It appears that there is dispute between the informant and
other family members of the Informant and Co-accused Rohit
Kumar Ram used to reside in the house of the deceased.
7. It appears that during investigation the co-accused
Rohit Kumar Ram was arrested and who confessed his guilt.
8. It appears that the petitioner alleged to have assisted the
co-accused in disposal of the dead body of the deceased. It appears
that there is nothing adverse against the juvenile-petitioner in his
Social Investigation Report.
9. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case
and considering the period of custody of the juvenile-petitioner,
the juvenile petitioner- Manish Kumar is directed to be released
on bail in care and supervision of his Natural Guardian and Father
namely Ram Kamal Ram on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Godda/or his Successor Court in connection with Thakurganti P. S.
Case No. 60 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No. 85 of 2024 subject
to the condition that one of bailor should be close relative and
subject to condition that the father of the juvenile- petitioner will
submit his mobile number and self-attested copy of his Aadhar
Card 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 and shall produce the
juvenile-petitioner as and when required.
10. Therefore, in view of the above, the judgment dated
15.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2024 by Sri
Janardan Singh, then learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- Godda
and the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Godda in connection with Thakurganti
P. S. Case No. 60 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No. 85 of 2024
are set aside.
11. Thus, the Criminal Revision No. 271 of 2024 is allowed
and stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Bibha/
