Jharkhand High Court
Sudhir Yadav @ Sudhir Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand ......Opp. Party on 26 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No.158 of 2025
....
Sudhir Yadav @ Sudhir Kumar Yadav, aged about 15 years, son
of Anil Yadav, resident of Village & P.O. Manikbad P.S. Deori,
District-Giridih through his father and natural guardian Anil
Yadav, aged 41 years, Son of Gopal Yadav, resident of Village and
P.O. Manikbad, P.S.-Devari, District.- Giridih
......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate
Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P
......
Order No.06/26.03.2025
This Criminal Revision Application No.158 of 2025 has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the judgment
dated 08.10.2024 passed in Criminal (Miscellaneous) Appeal
No.101 of 2024 by Sri Manoj Chandra Jha, learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih by which the appeal filed by
the petitioner has been dismissed by rejecting the prayer for bail of
the petitioner thereby affirming the order dated 24.09.2024 passed
by learned Principal Magistrate, J.J. Board, Giridih in connection
with Dhanwar P.S. Case No.242 of 2021 which has been instituted
for the Offences under Sections 341/342/323/325/120(B)/302/379
of IPC against the petitioner and several other persons.
2. It has been alleged in the written F.I.R that on 14.10.2021
at about 04.00 PM while the informant and her husband were in
their house, then in the meantime the accused persons namely
Lochani Devi @ Uma Devi, Pawan Yadav, Hiriya Devi, Malti Devi
@ Asha Devi, Pradeep Yadav, Sudhir Yadav, Balo Yadav, Most.
Rashmi, Anju Devi and Sushma Devi including the petitioner had
arrived there and they started to assault her husband by means of
lathi, stones. It is alleged that the accused Balo Yadav had brutally
assaulted the deceased Fagu Yadav on his head by bricks and
stones, whereas the juvenile petitioner climbed on the chest of the
deceased and pressed the same. It is also alleged that the other
accused namely Uma Devi and Hiriya Devi had assaulted the
Informant and had also snatched her ornaments.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 aged about 15 years
on the date of occurrence and he is meritorious student and has
secured First Division in the Secondary Examination in 2021. It is
submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the
petitioner and at best he is alleged to have climbed on the chest of
the deceased. However, the postmortem report of the husband of
the Informant does not support the injury alleged to be caused by
the petitioner. It is submitted that the other co-accused namely
Anju Devi, Sushma Devi @ Girja Devi and Mosomat Rashmi have
been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Subhash
Chand as then His Lordship was) of this Court vide order dated
15.07.2022 in B.A. No.6652 of 2022 and other accused Lochni
Devi @ Uma Mosomat and Hiriya Devi @ Jugali Devi have also
been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Subhash
Chand as then His Lordship was) of this Court vide order dated
13.06.2022 in B.A. No.4326 of 2022, and Malti Devi @ Aasha
Devi has also been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath) of this Court vide order dated 02.05.2022
in B.A. No.3674 of 2022 and other Co-accused Balo Yadav @
Baleshwar Yadav has also been granted bail by the Co-ordinate
Bench (Justice Subhash Chand as then His Lordship was) vide
order dated 01.11.2022 in B.A. No.8835 of 2022. It is submitted
that the juvenile petitioner is in custody since 12.08.2024 and
nothing adverse has been pointed in the Social Investigation
Report and hence he may be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer
for bail. It is submitted that the petitioner has actively participated
in the occurrence and had assaulted the deceased husband of the
informant and which is supported by the statement of several
witnesses and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected.
5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from
perusal of the records this case, it appear that the petitioner has
been implicated in this case due to family dispute.
6. It appears that the petitioner is juvenile. It also appear that
the informant had dragged the name of entire family members
including the juvenile petitioner and several other co-accused
persons named above.
7. It also appears that the other co-accused persons namely
Anju Devi, Sushma Devi @ Girja Devi and Mosomat Rashmi,
Lochni Devi @ Uma Mosomat and Hiriya Devi @ Jugali Devi,
Malti Devi @ Aasha Devi, Balo Yadav @ Baleshwar Yadav have
granted bail in B.A. No.6652 of 2022, B.A. No.4326 of 2022, B.A.
No.3674 of 2022 and B.A. No.8835 of 2022 respectively as
mentioned above.
8. Considering the custody of the juvenile petitioner and
considering the facts of this case, the petitioner namely Sudhir
Yadav @ Sudhir Kumar Yadav is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing the bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih or His
Successor Court in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 242 of
2021 and the custody of the minor may be given to the father of the
petitioner, and subject to condition that one of the bailers should be
the father of the petitioner and the petitioner and father of the
juvenile-petitioner will submit his mobile number and self-attested
copies 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, and the petitioner shall not leave the
jurisdiction of Giridih without prior permission of the Court and
shall produce the juvenile-petitioner as and when required.
9. Accordingly, the judgment dated 08.10.2024 passed in
Criminal (Miscellaneous) Appeal No.101 of 2024 by Sri Manoj
Chandra Jha, District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih and
the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate,
J.J. Board, Giridih in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No.242
of 2021 are set aside.
10. This Criminal Revision No.158 of 2025 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court
below.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Nishant/-
