Jharkhand High Court
Gumla vs The State Of Jharkhand .......Opp. ... on 6 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 153 of 2025
------
Aman Raj aged about 16 years, son of Shashi Sahu represented
through his mother Sarita Devi. Both are resident of village:
Chandkopa, P.O: Chandkopa, P.S: Senha, District: Lohardaga.
At present R/O Village: Patratoli, P.O & P.S: Raidih, District:
Gumla. ......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .......Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Mohua Palit, A.P.P
------
Order No: 03/ Dated: 06.03.2025
This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on
behalf of the juvenile petitioner by challenging the impugned
judgment dated 29.07.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of
2024 by Shri Prem Shankar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-
cum-Special Judge (Children Court), Gumla by which the appeal
filed on behalf of the juvenile petitioner has been dismissed
thereby, affirming the order dated 24.06.2024 passed by learned
Principal Magistrate and members of Juvenile Justice Board,
Gumla by which the prayer for bail on behalf of the juvenile
petitioner has been rejected in connection with G.R Spt. No. 60 of
2024 (arising out of Raidi P.S Case No. 03 of 2023 for the offence
under Sections 120-B, 364, 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. As per the F.I.R, it is alleged by the informant that while
his son namely Gyan Deep Sahu aged around 15 years was taking
meal then, the juvenile petitioner Aman Raj and one Devraj Lohra
arrived at his house by the Motorcycle and took away his son
Gyan Deep Sahu in the garb of dropping him at the Tuition
Centre. Then, the son of the informant along with his tuition bag
went with the said Aman Raj (i.e. the petitioner) for attending the
Tuition classes. However, when he did not return by 7'O clock
then the informant started searching him and he learnt from one
Harsh Minz that the deceased Gyan Deep Sahu had not arrived for
tuition. Thereafter, he along with his family members went to the
house of juvenile petitioner and enquired from him but he could
not give satisfactory reply and then he went to the house of Devraj
Lohra but the said Devraj Lohra was not present in the house and
his own mobile phone was switched off as told by his sister.
3. Heard Mr. Pankaj Verma, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Mohua Palit, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned Courts
below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It
is submitted that the petitioner is a juvenile and has not committed
any offence. It is submitted that the allegations against the
juvenile petitioner for committing the murder of the son of the
informant are false and concocted. It is submitted that petitioner
has no criminal antecedent and he is a child of 17 years by now
and prosecuting his studies in school. It is further submitted that
no specific any overt act has been alleged against the juvenile
petitioner.
It is further submitted that the entire family members of
the petitioner's nanihal (Mother's parental home) have been made
accused with malafide intention on the part of the informant. It is
submitted that the co-accused namely Govardhan Sahu has
already been granted bail by Ms. Jaya Samita Kujur, learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla vide order dated 30.01.2024.
It is submitted that the other co-accused namely Sarita Devi has
also been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court vide order dated
11.01.2024 passed in A.B.A No. 6486 of 2023, co-accused
Kapinder Sahu has granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice
Ratnaker Bhengra) of this Court vide order dated 23.02.2024
passed in B.A No. 1328 of 2024 and co-accused Birendra Sahu @
Biru has granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath) of this Court vide order dated 07.02.2025
passed in B.A No. 8177 of 2024. It is further submitted that the
petitioner is in custody since 24.02.2023 and hence, he may be
enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer
for bail. It is submitted that the juvenile petitioner is named in the
F.I.R and he had taken away the deceased on the pretext of
dropping him at the tuition place. However, when the deceased
Gyan Deep Sahu did not return then the informant had started
searching him in the house of Aman Raj who gave evasive reply
and hence, the prayer for bail may be rejected.
6. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and from going
through the records of this case.
7. It appears from the confessional statement of juvenile
petitioner that he along with his associates namely Birendra Sahu
@ Biru, Aman Raj and Devraj Lohra has caused the death of the
deceased Gyan Deep Sahu due to superstition.
8. It also appears the one Yamaha Motorcycle, by which the
deceased was taken by the juvenile petitioner, was recovered from
the house of the juvenile petitioner.
9. This Court refrains itself from commenting on the merit
of the case. However, it reveals from the confessional statement
and statement of witnesses as recorded in the case diary, it appears
that the petitioner was in touch with the deceased son of the
informant and was also associated with the persons who have been
granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
10. Considering the act of the petitioner, this Court is not
inclined to exercise discretion under Section 12 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in favour of
the juvenile petitioner for releasing him on bail.
11. Thus, the prayer for bail of the juvenile petitioner namely
Aman Raj is, hereby, rejected.
12. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2024
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2024 by Shri Prem Shankar,
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children
Court), Gumla and the order dated 24.06.2024 passed by learned
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection
with G.R Spt. No. 60 of 2024 (arising out of Raidi P.S Case No. 03
of 2023 are upheld.
13. Thus, this Criminal Revision No. 153 of 2025 is
dismissed.
14. However, the learned Court below is directed to conclude
the trial as expeditiously as possible by fixing the case preferably
on day to day basis within a period of two (02) months, otherwise,
the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Courts
below at once by the office.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Avinash/
