Jharkhand High Court
Mohan Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand ......Opp. Party on 16 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
2025:JHHC:15754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No.169 of 2025
....
Mohan Kumar, age about 16 years, Son of Sri Kesav Kumar,
Represented through his Father Sri Kesav Kumar, age about 60
years, Son of Mahendra Singh, Resident of Village-Ratanpur,
P.O. & P.S.-Ratanpur, District-Begusarai, Bihar
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. No.2, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P
......
Order No.06/16.06.2025
This Criminal Revision Application has been field under
Section-102 of Juvenile Justice (Children's Care and Protection)
Act, 2015 on behalf of the Juvenile petitioner by challenging the
judgment dated 13.12.2024 passed in Cr.Appeal (Spl. Children's
Court) No.13 of 2024 by Sri Ghulam Haidar, learned Additional
Sessions Juge-I-cum-Special Judge Children Court, Koderma by
which the bail of the Juvenile petitioner has been dismissed
thereby affirming the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by
Ms. Kanchan Toppo, learned Principal Magistrate and Member of
Juvenile Justice Board, Koderma in connection with Koderma P.S.
Case No.141 of 2024 for the offences instituted under Section
302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. by which the
prayer for bail filed on behalf of the Juvenile Petitioner has been
rejected.
2. The Informant Shamser Alam has alleged in the FIR that
his younger brother Anzar Alam @ Rajan was working as a staff in
Shanti Motel Hotel at Bagitand, Koderma, while one Md. Naseem
Iraqi was working as the Manager in that hotel, the owner is one
2025:JHHC:15754
Damodar Sao. It is further alleged that on 22.06.2024 at about 4.00
O'clock in the evening, eight (08) youths all aged about between
20 to 23 years, reached at the said hotel on a car for having meal
and placed order for the food. Meanwhile, they brought a carton of
wine bottles from their car and started consuming liquor in the said
hotel, which was objected by the said brother of the Informant and
the Manager of the hotel and other staffs. A hot discussion took
place between both the sides. Later on, they also indulged in verbal
duel with the Manager and staffs of the hotel at the time of
payment of bill of the food, by saying that the bill was excessive.
Then they left the hotel by their car. But after, 2 ½ - 3 hours they
again arrived at the said hotel at about 8.00 O'clock in the night on
their car and at that time, while four of them remained in the car,
but the petitioner with three other accuseds namely Dilkhush
Kumar, Gulshan Kumar and Chintu Kumar went inside the hotel
and after a short while, Dilkush Kumar killed the said Manager of
the hotel and the younger brother of the Informant by shooting
them with a pistol.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is a juvenile and innocent and has committed no offence
and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted there is
no specific overt act against the juvenile petitioner. It is submitted
that the one co-accused Dilkhush Kumar has fired upon the
deceased due to which the deceased person had died. It is
submitted that the co-accuseds have been granted bail in this case
namely Gulshan Kumar, Sudhanshu Kumar vide order dated
20.12.2024 in B.A. No.9625 of 2024 and vide order dated
2025:JHHC:15754
13.01.2025 B.A. No.9292 of 2020 by the Co-ordinate Bench
(Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath) of this Court and co-accused
Ayush Kumar vide order dated 08.05.2025 in B.A. No.3655 of
2025 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar
Choudhary) of this Court respectively. During the course of
argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the web
copy of vide order dated 08.05.2025. It is submitted that there is
nothing adverse against juvenile petitioner in the report send by the
Probation Officer. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody
since 24.06.2024 and his father is ready to take him into care and
custody. and hence the Juvenile petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of
bail. It is submitted that the petitioner was present at the time of
occurrence. It is submitted that co-accused Dilkhush Kumar fired
at the deceased person but the presence of the petitioner is also not
ruled out for instigating the co-accused Dilkhush Kumar and
hence the prayer for bail of the Juvenile petitioner may be rejected.
6. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the
FIR and Lower Court Records of this case.
7. It appears from the FIR that an altercation took place in
the hotel with regard to serving the food by the hotel employees
and submitting the excessive bills.
8. It also appears that the co-accuseds have been granted bail
namely Gulshan Kumar and Sudhanshu Kumar vide order dated
20.12.2024 in B.A. No.9625 of 2024 and vide order dated
13.01.2025 B.A. No.9292 of 2020 by the Co-ordinate Bench
(Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath) of this Court and co-accused
namely Ayush Kumar vide order dated 08.05.2025 in B.A.
No.3655 of 2025 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice
2025:JHHC:15754
Anil Kumar Choudhary) of this Court respectively.
9. It appears that the petitioner is in custody since
24.06.2024.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
the fact that the juvenile petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2024,
the juvenile-petitioner namely Mohan Kumar is directed to be
released on bail in care and supervision of father of the juvenile
petitioner on furnishing of bail bonds of Rs.15,000/-(Rs. Fifteen
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Jamshedpur in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No.141/2024
with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case
and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card
in the Court below with an Undertaking that he will not change his
mobile number and will not annoy or disturb the Informant and
witnesses of the case during the trial of the case.
The custody of the juvenile may be handed over to the
father of the juvenile petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the Judgment dated 13.12.2024 passed in
Cr.Appeal (Spl. Children's Court) No.13 of 2024 by Sri Ghulam
Haidar, learned Additional Sessions Juge-I-cum-Special Judge
Children Court, Koderma and the order dated 18.11.2024 passed
by Smt. Kanchan Toppo, learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Koderma are set aside.
12. Thus, this Criminal Revision No.169 of 2025 is allowed.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Nishant/-
