Jharkhand High Court
Karma Munda vs State Of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party on 12 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 982 of 2024
....
Karma Munda, aged -16 years S/O Late Bhoja Munda, Residence
of Village-Gutjora, PO and PS- Khunti, District-Khunti,
(Jharkhand)
Juvenile Petitioner represented through his mother/Natural
Guardian Rupan Mundain, aged- 38 years W/o Late Bhoja Munda,
Residence of Village-Gutjora, PO and PS- Khunti, District-Khunti,
(Jharkhand) ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the petitioner : Mr. Syed Tafazzul Sajid, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl. P. P.
.....
ORAL ORDER IN COURT
05/12.06.2025 The present Criminal Revision No. 982 of 2024 has been
filed on behalf of the juvenile-petitioner under Section 102 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
challenging the judgment dated 01.08.2024 passed by Sri Sanjay
Kumar No. 2, learned District and Additional Sessions Judge,
Khunti in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2024 whereby learned District
and Additional Sessions Judge, Khunti has dismissed the appeal and
rejected the prayer for bail of the juvenile- petitioner and affirmed
the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the learned Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti in connection with
Khunti P. S. Case No. 89 of 2023 corresponding to G. R. No. 523 of
2023 instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, by which prayer for bail of the juvenile-petitioner was
rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the juvenile-
petitioner that the impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the
law. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and
has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that there is
no evidence against the juvenile- petitioner and there is no witness
of the occurrence. It is submitted that the petitioner is juvenile and
has not committed any offence. It is submitted that the juvenile-
petitioner is in observation home since 12.07.2023 and as such, he
may be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is there is
direct allegation the juvenile-petitioner for committing murder of
his father and hence the prayer for bail of the juvenile- petitioner
may be rejected.
5. Heard learned counsel for the both the sides and perused
the records of the case.
6. It appears that the mother of the juvenile-petitioner has
lodged the FIR against unknown persons. However during course
of investigation, it transpires that the juvenile- petitioner has
confessed his guilt for killing his own father, the judgment dated
01.08.2024 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar No. 2, learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge, Khunti in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of
2024 and the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the learned
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti in connection
with Khunti P. S. Case No. 89 of 2023 corresponding to G. R. No.
523 of 2023 are upheld.
7. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the
juvenile- petitioner on bail at this stage.
However, the learned Court below is directed to expedite
the trial expeditiously preferably within three (3) months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. Thus, the Criminal Revision No. 982 of 2024 is dismissed.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
