Allowed

Arjun Yadav Alias Bilta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Aug 2023Cr.A(SJ)/396/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal filed by a juvenile appellant against the rejection of his bail. It set aside the trial court's order and directed his release on bail with conditions, noting that his co-accused had been granted bail and the trial was in an advanced stage.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the impugned order dated 24.05.2023 was set aside; the appellant was directed to be released on bail.

Arjun Yadav Alias Bilta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal(S.J)No. 396 of 2023

¶3

Arjun Yadav @ Bilta

¶4

…… Appellant Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Ramesh Ravidas ……. Respondents

¶6

---------

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶8

---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, Advocate ----------- 05/Dated: 21^st August, 2023

¶9

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the juvenile appellant Arjun Yadav @ Bilta under section 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 challenging the order dated 24.05.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist-Special Judge, Bokaro by which prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with Children Court Case No.06 of 2022 arising out of Gomia (Kathara) P.S Case No.54/2021, corresponding to G.R.No.30/2021, under sections 395, 397, 412 of the IPC and under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149, 354/149, 452/149, 504/149, 506/149 of the IPC and under Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) & 3(1) (w)(i) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶10

Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned APP for the State and Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the Respondent no.2-Informant.

¶11

Earlier the prayer for bail of the juvenile appellant-Arjun Yadav @ Bilta was rejected in Criminal Revision No.279 of 2022 vide order dated 14.07.2022 with observation “at this stage” and the learned Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within a

¶12

¶13

period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, however, the trial is still pending.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the appellant is named in the FIR but there is general and omnibus allegation against the appellant. It is submitted that the prosecution evidence has already been closed and the case is fixed for defence evidence and three defence witnesses has been examined so far. It is submitted that the appellant is juvenile and is in custody since 11.06.2021 i.e. for more than two years and two months. It is submitted that another juvenile co-accused namely Rohit Kumar Yadav @ Rohit Kumar Choudhary @ Rohit Yadav was granted bail by this Court in Cr. Revision No.85 of 2022 vide order dated 20.04.2023. It is submitted that the case of the appellant also stands on similar footing as of co-accused namely Rohit Kumar Yadav @ Rohit Kumar Choudhary @ Rohit Yadav and hence the appellant be given the benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the appellant-Arjun Yadav @ Bilta is named in the FIR. It is submitted that earlier the prayer for bail of the juvenile appellant-Arjun Yadav @ Bilta was rejected in Criminal Revision No.279 of 2022 vide order dated 14.07.2022 on merit and hence this appeal may be dismissed. It is submitted that the trial is still going on. Though the prosecution evidence has been closed but the defence witness are being examined and hence the bail may be rejected.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Informant-Respondent no.2, after adopting the submission of learned APP, has further submitted that the juvenile appellant is not entitled to bail as the appellant along with others has committed the death of Bindu Devi, who is the sister of the informant. It is submitted that P.W-1 namely Sudha

¶16

¶17

Devi, P.W-2 namely Raju Ravidas (brother of the informant) and P.W-3 namely Ramesh Ravidas, the informant have fully supported the prosecution case against the juvenile appellant. It is submitted that P.W-6 namely Dr. Megh Narayan Ram and P.W-7 namely Dr. Binod Kumar Jhawho have proved injury on the injured persons. It is submitted that P.W-8, Ram Kumar Mishra is a seizure list witness and who has proved his signature on the seizure list and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected.

¶18

Perused the Records of this case and considered the submissions of both the sides and order dated 20.04.2023 passed in Cr. Revision No.85 of 2022, after remand from the Supreme Court vide order dated 01.03.2023 in Cr. Appeal No.690 of 2023 and the certified copies of depositions of P.W-1 to P.W-12 respectively and also D.W-1 to D.W-3 respectively.

¶19

It transpires that earlier the prayer for bail of the juvenile appellant-Arjun Yadav @ Bilta was rejected in Criminal Revision No.279 of 2022 vide order dated 14.07.2022 with observation “at this stage”.

¶20

It appears that in the meantime, juvenile petitioner namely Rohit Kumar Yadav @ Rohit Kumar Choudhary @ Rohit Yadav has been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Revision No.85 of 2022 vide order dated 20.04.2023 and copy of order dated 20.04.2023 has been enclosed as Annexure-3 in this Criminal Appeal.

¶21

It appears from the record that there is general and an omnibus allegation against the juvenile appellant for assaulting the informant and his family members as well as the deceased. Since, the trial is going on, this Court is not making any observation as it may affect the finding of the trial, but this Court cannot resist itself from considering the fact, after going through the evidence of P.W-1, Sudha Devi, P.W-2, Raju

¶22

¶23

Ravidas, brother of the informant and P.W-3, Ramesh Ravidas, the informant, it reveals that the FIR was lodged by the informant i.e. P.W-3, Ramesh Ravidas, (i.e. P.W-2) on the written application given to him by his brother Raju Ravidas, which has come during his cross-examination and prior to this, he was not aware of the names of any persons.

¶24

It also transpires from the evidence of P.W-2, Raju Ravidas that he is an Union Leader in CCL and he was trying to take support of local people by using his position as an Union Leader and even the matter went to SC/ST Commission, New Delhi, which was inquired and they had also tried to put pressure upon the police officials and for which one case being Gomia (Kathara) P.S. Case No.61 of 2021 is said to have been instituted. It also appears from the evidence of P.W-6, Dr. Megh Narayan Ram and P.W-7, Dr. Binod Kumar Jha that the injury report of the injured persons were give on a plain paper, which have not been mentioned in the Register of the Hospital and the Doctors namely P.W-6, Dr. Megh Narayan Ram and P.W-7, Dr. Binod Kumar Jha have stated that they have not been able to get the original copies of injury reports till date during their evidence. On the one hand, P.W-2, Raju Ravidas is said to be hospitalized for the entire night on the date of occurrence and on the other hand, it has come during the evidence of P.W-2, Raju Ravidas also that he has taken out procession in protest though he was said to be hospitalized. It has also come in his evidence that the informant and his family members have been assured of a Government Job and pension and monetary compensation and they have received an amount of Rs.8,25,000/-. It also appears that seizure list witness P.W-8, Ram Kumar Mishra has supported the recovery of only one Chair of fibre, but not the other materials as shown in the seizure list as Ext.-P-4/P.W.8

¶25

¶26

has denied seizure of articles shown in another seizure listed P- 2/1/P.W-8.

¶27

Considering the facts and in the circumstances of this case and the custody of the juvenile appellant, the juvenile appellantArjun Yadav @ Bilta is directed to be released on bail in custody of his father Lal Mohan Yadav @ Lalman Gope, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only)with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1^st -cum-Special Judge, Bokaro, in connection with Children Court Case No.06 of 2022 arising out of Gomia (Kathara) P.S. Case No.54 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No.30 of 2021 subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be father of the juvenile-appellant and one of the other bailors should be own relative of the juvenile appellant and the juvenile appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of District-Bokaro without prior permission of the learned Court below and father of the petitioner will submit self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card and will also submit his mobile number before the learned Court below, which he will always keep active and will not change it, during the pendency of this case, without prior permission of the Court and shall produce the appellant as and when required before the learned court below.

¶28

In view of the above, the order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1^st -cum-Special Judge, Bokaro in Children Court Case No.06 of 2022 in Misc. Criminal Application No.659 of 2023 is set aside.

¶29

Thus, the Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.396 of 2023 stands allowed and stands disposed of.

¶30

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶31

Saket/-

Arjun Yadav Alias Bilta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Yadav Alias Bilta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Habib Mian And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rana Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Rana Shailesh Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Brajmohan Tiriya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gurpreet Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uma Shankar Saraogi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Munna Dhobi Alias Sonu Kumar Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand