1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 882 of 2024 …. Rajiv Kumar Bharti @ Rajiv Kumar Bharati, aged about 16 years, son of Govind Kumar Mandal @ Gobind Kumar Mandal, resident of Anugrah Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir, P.O. and P.S.-Dhansar, District-Dhanbad, through his father and natural guardian Govind Kumar Mandal @ Gobind Kumar Mandal, son of Fuldev Mandal, P.O. & P.S.-Dhansar, District-Dhanbad ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jay Horo, S/o Jems Horo R/o Toolip Garden, Chanchani Colony, P.O.-Dhaiya, P.S. + Dist- Dhanbad ……Opp.Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Senior Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, A.P.P For the O.P No. 2 : Mr. J.J. Sanga, Advocate …… Order No.08/24.03.2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the judgment dated 29.07.2024 passed by Sri Sujit Kumar Singh, learned Special Judge, Children Court, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2024 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by rejecting the prayer for bail and by affirming the order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad by which the prayer for bail on behalf of the juvenile petitioner has been rejected in connection with Dhanbad P.S Case No. 225 of 2024 for the offences registered under Section 304/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the F.I.R, it is alleged that the elder daughter of the Informant namely Ishita Horo had gone to Dinobali School to pick her younger sister Jiya Horo and while they were returning on her 2 Scooty then, in the meantime, one Scorpio vehicle bearing Registration No. JH 10CU 7836 was driving the vehicle in a very rashly and negligently in the high speed of approx. 150 km/hr in the wrong side and suddenly he lost his control and had hit the Scooty of the two daughters of the informant due to which both daughters of the informant had been thrown in the service lane and as a result of which, they died on the spot. It is also alleged that the eye witnesses have stated that both the boys were making reel and earlier also they were forbidden several times by the locals but they did not adhere to the said advise. It has been alleged that the juvenile petitioner namely Rajiv Kumar Bharti aged about 16 years was driving the said vehicle and one Pradeep Kumar Mandal was sitting on the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle is one Gobin Kumar Mandal (i.e. the father of the juvenile petitioner). 3. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the case has been wrongly instituted under Section 304 of IPC rather it was a case of 304-A IPC. It is submitted that there is no intention on the part of the petitioner to commit the death of two daughters of the informant. It is submitted that the juvenile petitioner is a student. It is submitted that the co-accused namely Pradeep Kumar Mandal has already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Ratnaker Bhengra, as then His Lordship was) of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2024 in Criminal Revision Application No.849 of 2024 and the juvenile petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2024 and hence, as 3 per the benevolent Provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the gravity of the offences has not to be seen and hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the juvenile petitioner, the informant has lost his two daughters and hence, the prayer for bail may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the submission of learned APP, has further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Court below. It is submitted that the juvenile petitioner is aged more than sixteen (16) years and even in the reports submitted under Section 15 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and it is also clear that he was aware of the consequences of the Act. It is submitted that the vehicle was in high speed at around 150 km/h and the I.O. of this case found correct this fact at para 12 of the Case Diary. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Courts below and hence, the prayer for bail may be rejected. 7. Perused the F.I.R, and Case Diary of this case and the Lower Court Records of this Case and considered the submission of both the sides. 8. It appears that the juvenile petitioner Rajiv Kumar Bharti and one Pradeep Kumar Mandal were moving in the said Scorpio which was driven by this juvenile petitioner and which belongs to his father Govind Kumar Mandal. It is alleged that the vehicle was driven at the speed of 150km/h and suddenly he lost its control and came in the said lane where both the daughters of the informant were passing and the vehicle dashed them due to which both the 4 daughter of the informant were thrown in the service lane and died on the spot. 9. It further appears that the case has been instituted under Sections 304/120/34 of IPC by the Police. However, the chargesheet was submitted by the police for the offence under Sections 304/34 of IPC as it reveals from para-65 of the Case Diary. 10. However, This Court refrains itself regarding the submission of chargesheet by the police for the offence under Section 304 of IPC at this stage, because it has to be decided by the learned Trial Court at an appropriate stage/Trial. 11. It reveals from the FIR that the vehicle was in uncontrollable situation and thereafter the Scorpio vehicle had dashed the daughters of the informant due to which they were thrown out and died on sport. 12. The father of the juvenile petitioner appears to be man of sufficient means as he is having Scorpio vehicle. 13. Considering the custody and the facts and on circumstances of this case, the petitioner Rajiv Kumar Bharti @ Rajiv Kumar Bharati is directed to be released on bail in the care and supervision of his father on furnishing of bail bonds of Rs.20,000 (Rs. Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 225 of 2024, subject to condition that one of the bailers must be the father of the petitioner subject to the condition he will deposit Rs.4,00,000/-(Rs.Four Lakhs) by way of interim compensation to the Informant by the Demand Draft in the name of Informant at the time of furnishing the bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- 5 (Rs. Twenty Thousand) and the petitioner and father of the juvenile-petitioner will submit his mobile number and self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card before the learned Court below, which he will always keep active and will not change it, during the pendency of this case and without prior permission of the Court and shall produce the juvenile-petitioner as and when required before the Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad. 14. However, the above compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.Four Lakhs) is being given to the informant in addition to the claims, if any, filed by the Informant under the Provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, if so advised at any subsequent stage. 15. Accordingly, the judgement dated 29.07.2024 passed by Sri Sujit Kumar Singh, learned Special Judge, Children Court, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2024 and order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad P.S Case No. 225 of 2024, are set aside. 16. Thus, this Criminal Revision No.882 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of. 17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-