1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.1165 of 2024 …. Sanjay Bhuiyan, aged about 15 years, son of Suru Bhuiyan, resident of Home Pipe Chhaya Nagar, Bhuiyandih, P.O. & P.S. – Sitaramdera, Town- Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand), represented through his natural guardian and father namely Suru Bhuiyan @ Shuru Bhuiyan son of Panmato Bhuiyan, resident of Home Pipe Chhaya Nagar, Bhuiyandih, P.O. & P.S. – Sitaramdera, Town – Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Savitree Devi, W/o Late Laxman Singh, R/o Baldev Basti (Niche Basti) Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S.-Jugsalai, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand ……Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Prem Pujari, Advocate …… Order No.04/18.03.2025 I.A No.2234 of 2025 This Criminal Revision Application No.1165 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the juvenile petitioner challenging the judgement dated 03.10.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.205 of 2024 by Sri Bimlesh Kumar Sahay, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur by which the appeal filed on behalf of the Juvenile petitioner has been dismissed thereby affirming the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur in connection with Jugsalai P.S. Case No.65 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 307/34 & 120-B of the IPC and Section 25(1-B)(a), 27, 35 of the 2 Arms Act by which the prayer for bail filed on behalf of the Juvenile Petitioner has been rejected. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, learned A.P.P. and Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel for the Informant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a juvenile aged around 15 years and the case has been compromised between the parties and the petitioner has already paid Rs.1,40,000/- to the guardian of the O.P. No.2 for the treatment of the injured person namely Karan Singh. It is also submitted that a Joint Compromise Petition (I.A. No.2234 of 2025) has also been filed by the parties and the petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2024 and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Paragraph 6 and 7 of I.A. No.2234 of 2025 dated 19.02.2025 read as follows:- “Paragraph-6:-That it is stated and submitted that both parties have amicably settled the matter outside the court through a Joint Compromise Petition. In the petition, the informant has acknowledged that the petitioner is a friend of the injured and was present at the scene to assist in his rescue. The informant has also acknowledged that the petitioner’s father provided Rs.1,40,000 for the treatment of the injured and further assured the informant that he would bear the cost of future treatment. Paragraph-7:- That the above-named petitioner and the informant of this case at the intervention of their common well-wishers settled the matter involved in the case outside court voluntarily and amicably without any type of pressure, duress, influence or allurements of any kind.” 3 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P raised objection. 6. However, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submitted that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and the O.P. No.2 and he has no objection if the juvenile-petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 7. It appears from the Social Investigation Report of the petitioner that there is no adverse remark against the petitioner. 8. It appears from the FIR that the petitioner had fired at the injured Karan Singh, however, the injured Karan Singh has survived. 9. It appears that the family members of the petitioner have got treatment of the injured person and incurred the expenses of Rs.1,40,000/- during the treatment of the injured. 10. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the Lower Court Records of this case, it appears that the petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2024. 11. It further appears that both the parties have settled the dispute and filed a Joint Compromise Petition. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2024, and both the sides have compromised the case, the petitioner namely Sanjay Bhuiyan is directed to be released on bail and in the custody of his father on furnishing of bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur/ or his successor Court in connection with Jugsalai P.S. Case No.65 of 2024, subject to condition that one of the bailers must be the father of the petitioner and father of the juvenile-petitioner will submit his mobile number and self-attested 4 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, without prior permission of the Court and shall produce the juvenile-petitioner as and when required. 13. However, the father of the petitioner shall deposit Rs.60,000/- to the Informant before the learned Court below at the time of the furnishing the bail bonds. 14. The custody of the juvenile may be handed over to the father of the juvenile petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the judgment dated 03.10.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 2024 by Sri Bimlesh Kumar Sahay, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, (Children’s Court), East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur and the order dated 04.09.2024 passed in by the Juvenile Justice Board are set aside. 16. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2234 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. 17. However, learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board as well as Members of the Juvenile Justice Board are directed to ensure the further treatment of the injured Karan Singh through proper channel before the proper Hospital including TMH if his treatment is further required and the father of the Juvenile Petitioner shall co-operate during the same. 18. Thus, this Criminal Revision No.1165 of 2024 is allowed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-