Laldeo Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:27224 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 411 of 2025

¶3

Juvenile “X” through his mother … Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

… Opposite Party

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Vishal Srivastava, Advocate -----

¶9

04/09.09.2025 Heard Mr. Mohit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶10

Ms. Sushma Aind, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Vishal Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant.

¶11

2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred for setting-aside the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection with Ghaghra P.S. Case No.21/2024, corresponding to G.R. No.313 of 2024, whereby, the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected. The further prayer is made for setting-aside the order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Icum-Special Judge (Children Court), Gumla in Criminal Appeal (Juvenile) No.06 of 2025, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of the learned trial court has been affirmed. The prayer is also made to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Ghaghra P.S. Case No.21/2024, G.R. Case No.313 of 2024, registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile and he was aged about 16 years at the time of alleged occurrence.

¶13

-1-

¶14

Criminal Revision No. 411 of 2025

¶15

( 2025:JHHC:27224 )

¶16

He submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. He further submits that the petitioner is being represented by his mother and she is ready to give any undertaking that she will take care of the child and the petitioner will not be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger. He also submits that even the informant has not supported the case and she has been declared hostile. He submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 16.03.2024 and he has remained in custody for about 1 ½ years. He further submits that both the learned Courts have rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner only on the ground of inference and apprehended that the petitioner may come in contact with criminals. On these grounds, he submits that regular bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer, however she is not disputing the fact that the informant has been declared hostile. 5. Learned counsel for the informant is present pursuant to the notice issued by this Court and he submits that the informant has been declared hostile. He supports the case of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is happened to be brother-in-law of the informant.

¶18

6. In view of the above, it transpires that the petitioner is a juvenile and he was aged about 16 years at the time of alleged occurrence. The petitioner is being represented by his mother and she is ready to give any undertaking that she will take care of the child and she will not allow the child to indulge with hardened criminals or any criminal and the child will not be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger.

¶19

7. It appears that both the learned Courts have rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was the driver of the

¶20

-2-

¶21

Criminal Revision No. 411 of 2025

¶22

( 2025:JHHC:27224 )

¶23

tractor and his involvement cannot be ruled out. Further, both the learned Courts apprehended that the petitioner may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger, which does not sound good in view of the fact that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 speaks otherwise.

¶24

8. In view of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the 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:

¶25

(i) If there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal;

¶26

(ii) Expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger; or

¶27

(iii) The person’s release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶28

9. From Section 12 of the said Act, it also transpires that seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of the juvenile is also no relevant consideration for denial of bail above 16 years of age and even in heinous offence also, the juvenile is entitled to get bail under section 12 of the Act, 2015.

¶29

10. In view of the above discussions, the Court comes to a conclusion that the reasoning and conclusion given by both the learned Courts that there is likelihood that the petitioner will come into the association of dreaded criminals and there is likelihood of moral, physical or psychological danger of the petitioner if released on bail, is not found to be a reasonable ground.

¶30

11. In that view of the matter, the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the

¶31

-3-

¶32

Criminal Revision No. 411 of 2025

¶33

( 2025:JHHC:27224 )

¶34

learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection with Ghaghra P.S. Case No.21/2024, corresponding to G.R. No.313 of 2024 as well as the order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children Court), Gumla in Criminal Appeal (Juvenile) No.06 of 2025 are, hereby, set-aside.

¶35

12. Let the revisionist who is in remand home since 16.03.2024 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/mother, in connection with Ghaghra P.S. Case No. 21/2024, G.R. No.313/2024, after furnishing a personal bond of his mother (Bandhani Devi) with two sureties of her relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(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 mother will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence;

¶37

(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;

¶38

(iii) Juvenile and natural guardian/mother will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month commencing with the first Monday of October, 2025, and if during any

¶39

-4-

¶40

Criminal Revision No. 411 of 2025

¶41

( 2025:JHHC:27224 )

¶42

calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day;

¶43

(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.

¶44

13. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of.

¶45

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶46

Ajay/

¶47

-5-

¶48

Criminal Revision No. 411 of 2025

Laldeo Lohra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laldeo Lohra 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

Abhishek Pandey Vs Somi Pandey

Raman Jee Tiwary Vs Chandani Tiwary

Sunil Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vishwamitra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar Shaw Alias Rajesh Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjit Swarnkar Vs the State of Jharkhand