2025:JHHC:21049 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1186 of 2024 ------ Ritesh Kumar Das @ Ritesh Ranjan, aged about 17 years, son of Prahlad Das, resident of House No.12, Ward No.6, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar through his mother and natural guardian Babita Devi, wife of Prahlad Das, resident of House No.12, Ward No.6, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Vikas Kumar Yadav, son of Shri Maheshwar Marik, Village Basbutiya, Jarmundi, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Jarmundi, Distrcit Dumka .... .... .... Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Ms. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Khushboo Kumari, Advocate Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shishir Suman, Advocate ------ Order No.10 Dated :30.07.2025 Instant criminal revision is preferred against the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by Children Court, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected in connection with Madhupur P.S. Case No.145 of 2024 corresponding to Enquiry No.198 of 2024 registered under Section 103(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S. Act, 2023. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the charge against the petitioner is that petitioner had administered poison to the deceased. However, it has come in evidence that by consuming poison, the petitioner also got seriously ill and was admitted in the hospital which will be evident from statement of the Doctor and staff of the hospital. 3. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the criminal revision, but has not disputed the factual assertions made. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no.2/father of the deceased that the deceased was being harassed by this petitioner and one Pankaj Kumar Yadav @ Danger and was administered poison in the cold drink. It is also submitted that the deceased had confided to opposite party no.2, as has also come in the FIR that the petitioner had been harassing the deceased mentally. 5. I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that 2025:JHHC:21049 there is no overt act attributed to the petitioner that he had administered poison to the deceased. From the statement of witnesses viz Kavya Kumari, it appears that deceased was in relationship with the petitioner. Under the circumstance, the criminal revision is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge I-cum-Children Court, Deoghar in connection with Madhupur P.S. Case No.145 of 2024 corresponding to Enquiry No.198 of 2024. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit