Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Prasad, J.
Vikram Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opp. Party
Cr. Revision No. 1182 of 2024, Cr. Revision No. 1167 of 2024
Decided On : 06-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mrs.Vani Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party :Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Advocate, Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice
Act Referred
ARMS ACT: S.27
Headnote
(B) Bail - Principles governing bail for juveniles - The court reiterated that the status of juveniles should be treated with special consideration, emphasizing care and supervision mandatory during the granting of bail. (Paras 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners are juveniles accused under Section 392 of I.P.C and Section 27 of Arms Act. They were taken into custody but not named in the F.I.R, and allegations of confession and recovery of items were contested.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the bail applications of the juveniles under supervision with specific conditions, emphasizing judicial care for minors.
Issues: The main issues addressed include whether the confession and investigation details justifying bail outweigh the factors against it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that due consideration must be given to the status of the juveniles and the circumstances surrounding their detention, leading to the allowance of their bail applications.
Result: Both Criminal Revisions allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case filings and judgments. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's considerations in assessing bail. (Para 3 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. set aside prior judgments and orders. (Para 13) |
| 5. final order allowing revisions. (Para 14) |
ORDER :
Sanjay Prasad, J.
Both the Criminal Revision Application i.e. Cr. Revision No. 1182 of 2024 and Cr. Revision No. 1167 of 2024 are arising out of the common judgment dated 23.09.2024 passed by Sri Onkar Nath Choudhary, learned Additional Session Judge-I (Children Court), Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal (Juvenile) No. 53 of 2024 and as such, both the cases are being heard together and are being disposed of together by this common judgment.
2. Both the Criminal Revision i.e. Cr. Revision No. 1182 of 2024 and Cr. Revision No. 1167 of 2024 have been filed on behalf of the Juvenile petitioners by challenging the common judgment dated 23.09.2024 passed by Sri Onkar Nath Choudhary, learned Additional Session Judge-I (Children Court), Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal (Juvenile) No. 53 of 2024 by which the appeal filed on behalf of the Juvenile petitioners has been dismissed thereby, affirming the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribagh in connection with Sadar P.S Case No. 117 of 2024, G.R Case No. 1690 of 2024 for the offence under Section 392 of I.P.C and Section 27 of ARMS ACT by which the prayer for bail on behalf of the Juvenile petitioners has been rejected.
3. Heard Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.1182 of 2024 and Criminal Revision No.1167 of 2024 and Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned A.P.P in Criminal Revision No.1182 of 2024 and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned A.P.P in Criminal Appeal No.1167 of 2024.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 1182 of 2024 and Cr. Revision No. 1167 of 2024 has submitted that the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the Juvenile petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R and have not put on T.I Parade and no gold polished jewellery was recovered from the possession of their respective houses.
It is further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath) of this Court vide order dated 12.12.2024 passed in B.A No. 8683 of 2024 and B.A No. 9236 of 2024 has granted bail to the co-accused Pankaj Kumar and Vidaya Kumar @ Bediya respectively and has produced the web copies of the order dated 12.12.2024 during course of argument, let be kept on record.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioners are in custody since 08.06.2024 and father of the petitioners were given undertaking to keep them on proper care and supervision and hence, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned A.P.P for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
7. It is submitted that although, the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R but they have confessed their guilt and there is recovery of gold polished jewellery has been recovered from their respective house and hence, the prayer for bail may be rejected.
8. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides, it appears that the juvenile petitioners have not been named in the F.I.R. However, during course of investigation, they have confessed their guilt along with other co-accused persons namely Pankaj Kumar and Vidaya Kumar @ Bedia.
9. It further appears that gold polished jewellery was recovered from the house of the co-accused Avinash kumar and mobile phone and other articles were recovered from the house of Vikram Kumar.
10. However, the Social Investigation Report is not in favour of the petitioners
11. It appears that the juvenile petitioners have not been put on T.I Parade,.
12. Considering the fact that the petitioners are juveniles and they have not been put on T.I. Parade, tw
