Rohit Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the Order dated 04.01.2025 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1391 of 2024, arising out of Basia P.S. Case No. 26 of 2024, corresponding to Spt. G.R. Case No 167 of 2024, registered for the offence under Section Sections 302/34 of I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of witch Craft Practices Act, whereby the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected, which was confirmed by the Judgment dated 12.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge (Children's Court), Gumla, in Criminal Appeal Case No. 02 of 2025.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was juvenile aged about 16 years 08 months at the time of alleged crime, i.e. on 18.03.2024 and the name of the petitioner has come only on the basis of suspicion and confessional statement and the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. He further submits that the persons, who are major, involved in the alleged crime, have been

¶12

1

¶13

2025:JHHC:27479

¶14

granted regular bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No.7780 of 2024 and in B.A. No.9684 of 2024.

¶15

He further submits that the petitioner is represented by his mother and the mother is ready to give any undertaking to the effect that the petitioner will not be exposed to moral, physical and phycological danger.

¶16

He further submits that both the learned courts have pleased to reject the bail application only considering the nature of allegation. He submits that the learned Courts have not taken into consideration the spirit of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in its right perspective.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the finding of the learned Courts is correct and there is every chance that the petitioner will come in contact with criminals, however, he is not disputing that the petitioner is a juvenile.

¶18

It is admitted position that the name of the petitioner has come on the basis of suspicion and confessional statement and other major persons, who are alleged to be involved in crime, have been granted regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No.7780 of 2024 and in B.A. No.9684 of 2024. Petitioner is being represented by his mother and the mother is ready to give any undertaking to the effect that the petitioner will not be exposed to any moral, physical and phycological danger. Both the learned Courts have rejected the bail application only on the ground of nature of crime.

¶19

For rejecting the bail, three ingredients in light of Section 12 of

¶20

2

¶21

2025:JHHC:27479

¶22

the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are required to be considered, deals with the bail to juveniles (i) if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal, or (ii) expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger, or, (iii) the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶23

From Section 12 of the said Act, it also transpires that seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of the juvenile are also no relevant consideration for denial of bail above 16 years of age and is alleged to have committed a heinous offence is also entitled to get bail under section 12 of the Act, 2015. There is no classification, whatsoever, provided in Section 12 of the Act, 2015 with regard to grant of bail. Section 12 of the Act is applicable to all juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination of any nature.

¶24

In view of above discussions, the Court is satisfied that the reasoning and conclusion of the learned appellate court as well as Juvenile Justice Board is that there is likelihood that the petitioner will come into the association of dreaded criminals and there is likelihood of moral, physical and psychological danger of the petitioner if released on bail not founded on reasonable grounds.

¶25

The gravity of allegation has not been properly appreciated and the mandatory provision of Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2015 as well as other provisions relating to the juvenile has declined to grant bail to the juvenile on the basis of unfounded apprehension. In the absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said

¶26

3

¶27

2025:JHHC:27479

¶28

that his release would defeat the ends of justice and have failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the revisionist. The findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court are based on nature of crime.

¶29

Thus, the Order dated 04.01.2025 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1391 of 2024 and the Judgment dated 12.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge (Children's Court), Gumla, in Criminal Appeal Case No. 2 of 2025, arising out of Basia P.S. Case No. 26 of 2024, corresponding to Spt. GR Case No 167 of 2024 are not sustainable in the eye of law and hence both the orders are set aside and the present criminal revision is allowed.

¶30

In view of that, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

¶31

Since the revisionist is in observation home since 19.03.2024, he is directed to be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/mother in connection with Basia P.S. Case No. 26 of 2024, corresponding to Spt. GR Case No 167 of 2024, after furnishing a personal bond of his mother with two sureties of her relative each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, subject to the following conditions: -

¶32

(i) Natural guardian/mother will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionist will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical, or psychological danger and further that the

¶33

4

¶34

2025:JHHC:27479

¶35

father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

¶36

(ii) Natural guardian/mother will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate level which he would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste his time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits.

¶37

(iii) Juvenile and natural guardian/mother will report to the Probation Officer on the third Monday of every calendar month commencing with the third Monday of September, 2025, and if during any calendar month the third Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day.

¶38

(iv) The Probation Officer will keep a strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶39

As such, this Criminal Revision is disposed of. Pending I.A. if any stands disposed of.

¶40

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶41

R.Kumar

¶42

5

Rohit Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishwamitra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar Shaw Alias Rajesh Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laldeo Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sadhana Jaipuriar Alias Sadhana Jayapuriar Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation

Rahul Mandal Alias Rahul Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand