Jharkhand High Court
Ajit Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 October, 2015
Author: Amitav K. Gupta
Bench: Amitav K. Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 819 of 2015
Ajit Mahto, S/o Ghume Mahto @ Ghumeshwar Mahto @ Bhuneshwar Mahto, R/o
Village-Barabaru, P.O-Dundigara, P.S.-Khunti, Dist.-Khunti
...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Madan Mohan Ram, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
---------
05/Dated: 26/10/2015
The instant Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the order dated 02.06.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2015, whereby prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 23.10.2014. That no adverse remark has been made in the Social Investigation Report and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. It is submitted that name of the petitioner has transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused. It is also argued that the learned court below have failed to appreciate and consider the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which mandates the release of juvenile in conflict with law on bail unless his release is likely to bring him in association of known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or defeats the ends of justice.
It is urged that in similar circumstances co-accused, Rupchand Mahto has been granted bail in B.A. No. 2201 of 2015. It is submitted that petitioner's parents are willing to give an undertaking to ensure proper supervision and good behaviour of the petitioner.
Learned A.P.P. assisted by Mr. A.K Sahani, learned counsel for the informant has opposed and submitted that witnesses namely, Birsa Munda an eye witness to the occurrence and an occupant of the house has categorically stated that this petitioner had given knife blow thereby slitting the neck of the deceased. That the witnesses and co-accused have stated about the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. It is argued that Rupchand Mahto has been granted bail as he had played the role of conspirator and there was no overt act alleged against him, however other co-accused, namely, Jitendra Mahato against whom there is allegation of having fired gun shot on the deceased has been denied the privilege of bail and the case of the petitioner stands on the same footing.
Heard. Considering the gravity of offence and allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail as his release will not be in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the revision application stands dismissed.
(Amitav K. Gupta, J.) Satayendra/