The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 95 of 2024 Himanshu Kumar, son of Dhanji Singh, resident of village: Tetaria, Dakshin Ekauna, PO & PS: Udawant Nagar, District: Bhojpur (Bihar) through his father and natural guardian Dhanji Singh, son of Srinath Singh, resident of village: Tetaria, Dakshin Ekauna, PO & PS: Udawant Nagar, District: Bhojpur (Bihar) ... Petitioner The State of Jharkhand -Versus- … ... Opposite Party CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
already been granted privilege of bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in BA No. 2597 of 2024 vide order dated 18.06.2024 and another co-accused, namely, Navneet Kumar Yadav @ Navneet Yadav, whose name has come on the confession of Akshay Singh, has also been granted privilege of bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in BA No. 6426 of 2023 vide order dated 02.04.2024, therefore, seeks parity. The learned counsel has further submitted that the aspect against the petitioner is that his mobile location was correlated with the mobile details of the co-accused, whose name was disclosed by Akshay Singh. The learned counsel has further submitted that apart from the aforesaid, nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of this petitioner. The learned counsel has further submitted that in the recommendation of the Probation Officer, it does not appear that the petitioner-juvenile was involved in the incident and that the juvenile had only gone to Jamshedpur for roaming around. After asking from the neighbour that what was acted by them regarding juvenile, it was positive. Further recommendation is that the petitioner-juvenile may be given into the care of his parents. Therefore, the learned counsel has submitted that on the basis of the recommendation of the Probation Officer also, the petitioner-juvenile may be granted privilege of bail. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. The learned counsel has pointed out to the counter-affidavit and has submitted that there are several incriminating materials/ circumstances against the petitioner, which were collected during investigation. Para-6 of the case diary records seizure list prepared at the place of occurrence, which has supported the prosecution case. Further, statements of the informant and son and daughter of the deceased have been annexed with the case diary, which has also supported the prosecution case. Para-43 of the case diary records that tower locations of mobile of the petitioner-juvenile as well as co-accused Rohit Kumar Singh were at the place of occurrence at the time of incident. CDR details and tower locations of the mobiles of the accused persons have supported the prosecution case. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State, noted the recommendations as made by the -3- Probation Officer that he had no involvement in the crime and basically, he had gone to Jamshedpur at the time of occurrence for roaming around, he may be given into the care of his parents, moreover, two co-accused persons have been granted privilege of bail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is prudent or proper to release the juvenile in conflict with law on bail. Accordingly, present petitioner, named above, is ordered to be released on bail, on executing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur, in connection with Sonari PS Case No. 32 of 2023, corresponding to GR Case No. 910 of 2023, subject to the conditions that (i) father of the petitioner-juvenile will be one of the bailors (ii) father of the petitioner-juvenile will give assurance or undertaking that he will take proper care of his child and also continue with his studies and if possible, get him admitted in an institution with the help of Secretary, DLSA, Jamshedpur. The Secretary, DLSA, Jamshedpur will also take steps for counseling of the juvenile in conflict with law in every three months' period and (iii) any other condition, the learned Court-below may think fit and proper. Accordingly, the order dated 17.08.2023, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur in connection with Sonari PS Case No. 32 of 2023, corresponding to GR Case No. 910 of 2023 as well as the order dated 23.12.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2023 are set aside. of. Consequently, Cr. Revision No. 95 of 2024 is allowed and disposed S.B. (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Arguments
:- Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate; Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Ritesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP ... 09/03.09.2024: Both the counsels have appeared. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.08.2023, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur, in connection with Sonari PS Case No. 32 of 2023, corresponding to GR Case No. 910 of 2023 as well as the order dated 23.12.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2023, whereby the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected. Sonari PS Case No. 32 of 2023, corresponding to GR Case No. 910 of 2023, was registered for the offence under sections 326, 307, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and subsequently, sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1-B) a, 26(i) and 35 of the Arms Act were added and now the case is pending before the Court of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of written report of the informant Devyanti Singh and as per her written report, the prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.03.2023 at about 9:30 p.m. her husband had gone to market to take some articles for worship and after some time at about 10:12 p.m. her husband called on her mobile and informed that he has been shooted near Gudri Market Cinema Maidan. As per the informant, her husband was in pain and told her to send his son Chirag to Gudri Market. After that she along with her son and daughter went go Gudri Market and took her husband to TMH Hospital where the Doctor told her that her husband has received bullet injuries in his stomach and thigh and he is in serious condition. The informant has further alleged that her husband had dispute with his maternal uncle Shiv Shankar Singh with respect to the landed property and, therefore, she has full -2- suspicion that the said Shiv Shankar Singh had committed the said offence with intention to kill her husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR is against Shiv Shankar Singh and the petitioner is not named in the FIR and that name of this petitioner has come during investigation on the confession of one Akshay Singh and it is through the confession or disclosure of the said Akshay Singh, the names of this petitioner and other co-accused were disclosed. The learned counsel has further submitted that the said Akshay Singh @ Bala has