Chitranjan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

This petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.1.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge I cum Children Court, Lohardaga in Cr. Appeal No. 2 of 2025 whereby the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case No.22 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. No.329 of 2024, registered for the offence under sections 302/120B of the IPC and has confirmed the order passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga by order dated 13.12.2024.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 17 years and he has been arrayed in the said case on the confessional statement of Kishori Oraon who is first wife of the deceased. He submits that Kishori Oraon has been granted regular bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No.8787 of 2024 and other co-accused person has been granted bail in B.A. no.5611 of 2024. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.02.2024 and the learned court has rejected the bail application only on the ground considering the gravity of the crime. He submits in view of that the bail may kindly be granted.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the petitioner is a juvenile, however, allegation of murder is there.

¶15

-1- Cr. Revision No. 381 of 2025

¶16

2025:JHHC:23602

¶17

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, deals with bail to juveniles. On perusal of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, it is crystal clear that Section 12 of the Act overrides the bail provisions as contained in the Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for time being in force. It is further crystal clear that bail to the juvenile is a rule and refusal of the same is an exception and juvenile can be denied bail only on the following three grounds (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.

¶18

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.

¶19

In view of the above, the Court finds that the ground of rejection of bail of the petitioner by the learned first court as well as the learned appellate court is not on reasonable ground and only considering the gravity of the crime, the bail of the petitioner has been rejected, as well as the two main accused have been granted bail, and as such, the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga and the judgment dated 28.1.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge I cum Children Court, Lohardaga in Cr. Appeal No. 2 of 2025 whereby the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected in connection with

¶20

-1- Cr. Revision No. 381 of 2025

¶21

2025:JHHC:23602

¶22

Lohardaga P.S. Case No.22 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. No.329 of 2024, is hereby, set-aside, and consequently, this Criminal Revision petition being Cr. Revision No. 381 of 2025 is allowed.

¶23

Let the revisionist, who is in observation since 04.02.2024 be released on bail on the assurance and surety given by his father in Lohardaga P.S. Case No.22 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. No.329 of 2024, after furnishing personal bond of his father (Bishwanath Manjhi) with two sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga, subject to the conditions that,

¶24

(i) Natural guardian/father 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 father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

¶25

(ii) Natural guardian/father 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.

¶26

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

¶27

(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, Lohardaga, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶28

In light of above, this cr. revision petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶29

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶30

SI/

¶31

Cr. Revision No. 381 of 2025

Chitranjan Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitranjan Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Neha Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandeshwar Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand

Taqbul Ansari @ Takbul @ Takbul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Darbari Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gunjan Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand