1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.727 of 2022

Ritlal Chaudhary

@ Ritlal Kumar Chaudhary

.....

Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Raj Kumar Sharma

….

Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

For the Appellant

:

Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate

For the State

:

Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP

-----

5/08.02.2023

This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.08.2022 passed

by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in

Children Case No.11 of 2022, arising out of Jamua P.S. Case No.20 of

2022, corresponding G.R. Case No.933 of 2022 and S.T. No.303 of 2022

registered under section 363/365 of IPC and subsequently section

364A,302,201,120B/34 of IPC was added on 16/01/2022 and thereafter

the charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and other

persons under section 363,365,364(A),302,120(B)/ 34 of IPC.

2.

It has been alleged in the FIR by the informant that his son

(deceased) was playing on the date of occurrence, i.e. 13.01.2022 and

become traceless and thereafter he searched, but could not find him

and therefore the case was instituted. It has further been pointed out

that the name of this appellant for involvement in the commission of

the offense has come in the confessional statement of the co-accused

Mahesh Kumar Varma, who was the main conspirator and co-accused

in the present case and on the basis of the confessional statement of

the said co-accused Mahesh Kumar Verma, the dead body of the

deceased was recovered. It has further been pointed out that this

appellant has no role to play in the commission of the offense and no

any iota of evidence has been found during the course of investigation

against this appellant. The mobile number and the SIM card, which

are alleged to have been recovered, was belonging to the co-accused

2

persons namely Mahesh Kumar Verma and Shantun Kumar Mandal,

as evident from para 43 and para 47 of the case diary. Further it has

been pointed out that the age of the appellant has been determined as

17 years 4 months 21 days and the similarly situated co-accused

persons namely Shantun Kumar and Prawin Vishwakarma have been

enlarged on bail by this court vide Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 570 of

2022 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.755 of 2022 respectively. Further it

has been pointed out that the Social Investigation Report is also

favourable to this appellant and because of the lack of proper

guidance and guardianship, he is alleged to have been involved in

such type of offence, although he has been the student of +2 and

therefore it is urged on behalf of the appellant that the conditions as

set out under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act for rejecting the prayer

of bail to the petitioner do not exist and therefore, it is urged that let

him be enlarged on bail.

3.

Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the

contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and stated that it is a

heinous offence of kidnapping and murder of a child and the case is

pending in Children Court, Giridih and therefore he does not deserve

to be enlarged on bail, although he did not controvert the fact that he

was not having any criminal history.

4.

Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case.

5.

It is found that the appellant is a child in conflict with law, who

was above 17 years and the case is pending in the Children Court

Giridih. The charge sheet has been submitted and some of the

witnesses have also been examined and the possibility of tampering

with the evidence is very remote. Further from the Social Investigation

Report, it is found that his behaviour has been conducive to his elders

and also the members of society. He has also been obedient and

respectful to his neighbours. Further it is also found that he had been

the student of +2 in the high school at Charghara, but due to lack of

3

guardianship