Jharkhand High Court
Sintu Kumar @ Sintu Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand ......Opp. Party on 25 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No.1501 of 2023
....
Sintu Kumar @ Sintu Kumar Yadav, aged 15 years 7 months 4
days, son of Rajesh Yadav through his mother Kiran Devi, aged
35 years, wife of Rajesh Yadav, both residents of Village Dibha
mohalla, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District-Chatra
......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kr. Dubey, Advocate
For the State : Md. Azeemuddin, A.P.P
For the Informant : Mr. Santosh Kr. Soni, Advocate
......
CAV on 20.03.2025 Pronounce on 25.03.2025
This Criminal Revision No.1501 of 2023 has been filed
on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the Order dated
01.11.2023 passed in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No.27 of 2023 by
Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Special Judge, Child Act Cases-
Cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra by which the appeal
filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by rejecting the prayer
for bail of the petitioner and has affirmed the order dated
22.08.2023 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Chatra, by which the prayer for bail of the petitioner
has been rejected in MCA No.1488 of 2023 arising out of Sadar
P.S. Case No. 29 of 2023 instituted under Sections 302, 201/34 of
IPC.
2. Heard Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Md. Azeemuddin, learned APP for the State as well as
Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order passed by the learned Courts below are illegal,
arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that both
the Courts below have wrongly rejected the prayer for bail of the
petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is a juvenile and has
not committed any offence and his date of birth is 10.07.2007, and
which has been mentioned in Jharkhand Academic Council,
Ranchi.
4. It is submitted that there is no eye-witness of the
occurrence and no one had seen committing the murder of the
deceased. It is submitted that the petitioner had not gone to the
house of the Informant to call his son but due to previous enmity
and earlier dispute, the name of the petitioner was also included in
the First Informant Report and nobody stated that the son of
informant was seen going to Harlal Talab with this petitioner.
There were so many persons in the meeting and the petitioner had
no concern with the meeting and he had not participated in the
meeting. The First Informant Report was instituted after the
recovery of the dead body and after due consultation with others.
It is submitted stated that during the course of investigation some
persons had claimed as the eye witness that they had seen some
persons were quarrelling and had assaulted the son of the
informant and they saw in the light of motor cycles and on the
vague allegation alleged against the petitioner, they identified the
informant's son and they also identified the accused persons by
name even then they did not take care to inform to the father of the
deceased (Informant), though some of them were neighbours as
well as some are living in same locality which creates suspicion on
the prosecution case itself.
It is submitted that witness Om Prakash Sao, Sukul Yadav
and Hemanti Devi were examined after long time i.e. on
08.04.2023 and 08.05.2023 as well as 08.05.2023 though FIR
lodged on 15.02.2023, so their version cannot be believed. Even no
specific role mentioned, no specific overact mentioned only stated
that he was also there, which creates serious doubt on the
prosecution case.
It is submitted that no incriminating article has been
recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
It is submitted that the petitioner is in remand home since
20.02.2023 and he was declared juvenile by the competent
authority i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra by order dated
24.05.2023 after considering the certificate.
It is submitted that the petitioner has got bright career and
he is a good student. His date of birth is mentioned in Jharkhand
Academic Council Ranchi as 10.07.2007.
It is submitted that the mother of the juvenile is ready to
care the juvenile and she undertakes before the Court that her son
will not mix up with the criminals and she is ready to produce the
juvenile whenever the Court requires his attendance as well as she
is ready to abide by all conditions which may be imposed by this
Court.
It is submitted that the learned Courts below did not
consider the social investigation report as there is no adverse
remarks against the petitioner and hence the petitioner may be
released on bail.
It is submitted that co-accused namely Vicky Kumar has
been granted bail in B.A. No.4791 of 2023 by the Co-ordinate
Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary) of this
Court and one Sanjay Kumar, co-accused has been granted bail in
B.A. No.7844 of 2023 on 16.09.2023 by the Co-ordinate Bench
(Hon'ble Justice Deepak Roshan as then His Lordship was) of this
Court and the case of this petitioner is on identical footing and the
eye witnesses did not state any over act against the petitioner and
only omnibus and general allegation have been levelled.
It is submitted that though in the order of learned District
and Sessions Judge, it is stated that the petitioner was involved in
Sadar P.S. Case No.394 of 2022 but in that regard, it is submitted
that the petitioner is in custody since 20.02.2023 and the said case
was of family dispute and the name of the petitioner was
mentioned but the same was ended on compromise and hence he
may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer
for bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR
along with several other persons. It is submitted that the petitioner
had taken away the deceased son of the informant on his
motorcycle in the pretext of attending the meeting with several
other persons namely Rajesh Yadav, Praveen Yadav, Kishun Yadav,
Sanjay Yadav, Sanjay Kumar, Krishna Kumar Yadav, Bihari Yadav,
Sonu Kumar, Bijay Yadav, Raju Yadav, Uttam Yadav, Rohit Soni,
and Subodh Yadav, thereafter his son did not return for a long time
and when he started searching of his son then his brother Karu
Yadav @ Lekha Yadav had informed him to have seen his son with
15-20 people near Harlal Pond on 14.02.2023. However, his son
could not be found and finally he found the dead body of his son
Prakash Kumar Yadav on 15.02.2023 in the morning near Jungle. It
is submitted that the deceased Prakash Kumar Yadav was last seen
with this juvenile petitioner and he had taken him to meet with the
other persons in the garb of meeting. It is submitted that even the
juvenile petitioner has confessed his guilt in committing the
murder of the deceased son of the Informant during his
confessional statement recorded by the Police Station. It is
submitted that several witnesses namely Om Prakash Singh, Sukul
Yadav and Hemanti Devi had seen the juvenile petitioner and
others for assaulting the deceased son of the informant and hence
the prayer for bail of the petitioner may be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the
statement of learned A.P.P., has further submitted that the
impugned judgment and order passed by learned Courts below do
not require any interference. It is submitted that the juvenile
petitioner had taken away the deceased son of the informant on his
motorcycle for attending a meeting but he alongwith other accused
persons had committed his murder and had fled away. It is
submitted that even the petitioner is not a juvenile and he has
wrongly been declared juvenile on the basis false certificate of
Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi and for which he has filed
another Criminal Revision No.801 of 2024 by challenging the
order passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Chatra for declaring him juvenile. Even the learned Appellate
Court had approved the finding of learned Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board and as such the petitioner has challenged
order of the learned Juvenile Justice Board order and learned
Appellate Court before this Court by filing another Criminal
Revision No.801 of 2024 which has been heard along with this
Criminal Revision No.1501 of 2023.
7. It is submitted that the several witnesses namely Om
Prakash Singh, Sukul Yadav and Hemanti Devi have supported the
allegations against the petitioner for assaulting the deceased son of
the informant. It is submitted that the petitioner is also a habitual
offender and earlier also he was named in the case of under Section
307 of IPC and other Sections of IPC instituted by the one Sukri
Devi in connection with another in Sadar P.S. Case No. 394 of
2022 dated 14.12.2022 instituted under Sections
147/148/149/323/324/307 and 506 of IPC and the petitioner was
chargesheeted under the aforesaid Sections. Thus, the conduct the
juvenile petitioner is not proper.
8. It is submitted that several other accused persons namely
Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Vicky Kumar, Praveen Kumar Yadav and
Bimal Yadav have confessed their guilt for committing the murder
of the deceased son of the informant. It is submitted that even the
CCTV footage reveals that the son of the informant was moving
with the petitioner on his motorcycle at para 96 of the Case Diary.
It is submitted that even Om Prakash Yadav, Sukul Yadav, Hemanti
Devi had supported the prosecution case that the juvenile petitioner
and other accused person had assaulted the deceased and hence the
prayer for bail may be rejected.
9. Perused the Lower Court Records and the submissions of
both the sides.
10. It appears from the F.I.R that the Juvenile petitioner Sintu
Kumar aged 20 along with Bimal Yadav aged 22 years, Bablu
Yadav aged 23 years, Deepak Yadav aged 20 years, Praveen
Kumar and Ajit Kumar aged 16 years had arrived at the residence
of the juvenile petitioner.
11. It appears that the petitioner is said to have persuaded the
deceased to attend the meeting in the premises of Temple near
Harlal Pond and the deceased son, of the Informant, proceeded
with them by motorcycle. Thereafter, the Informant enquired from
all of them as to who had attended the meeting and upon which
Sintu Kumar and Bablu Yadav stated that there were
1.Rajesh Yadav, 2.Praveen Kumar, 3.Kishun Kumar, 4. Sanjay
Yadav, 5. Sanjay Kumar, 6. Krishna Kumar Yadav, 7. Bihari
Kumar, 8. Sonu Kumar 9. Bijay Yadav 10. Raju Yadav, 11. Uttam
Yadav, 12.Rohit Soni and 13.Subodh Yadav were present and
thereafter those persons alongwith several other persons took away
his son but when his son did not return to his resident till 9 PM in
the night. However, when the informant was about to leave the
resident to search his son, in the meantime, his brother Karu Yadav
arrived and informed him to have seen Prakash i.e. deceased son.
son near the Harlal Talab with 15-20 persons. He was also by
Karu that his son along with others named in the F.I.R, had gone to
attend the meeting, thereafter, the Informant immediately left for
temple situated near Harlal pond but he could not find his son, and
later on, he found the dead body of deceased son on 15.02.2023 in
the morning.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
considering the custody of the petitioner, the juvenile petitioner
namely Sintu Kumar @ Sintu Kumar Yadav is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/-(Rs.
Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Chatra or his Successor Court in MCA No.1488 of 2023 arising out
of Sadar P.S. Case No.29 of 2023 subject to condition that one of
the bailers should be the own relative of the petitioner and the
petitioner and guardian of the juvenile-petitioner will submit the
mobile number and self-attested copy of the Aadhar Card before
the learned Court below, which he will always keep active and will
not change it, and the petitioner and her guardian shall not leave
the jurisdiction of the Learned Court below, during the pendency of
this case, without prior permission of the Court and shall produce
the juvenile-petitioner as and when required.
13. Accordingly, the judgment dated 01.11.2023 passed by Sri
Rajesh Kumar, learned Special Judge, Child Act-Cum-Additional
Sessions Judge-I Chatra in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No.27 of
2023 and order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the learned Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Chatra in MCA No.1488 of
2023 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.29 of 2023 are set aside.
14. This Criminal Revision No.1501 of 2023 is allowed.
15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court
below.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Nishant/-
