1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1232 of 2024 Raju Pahariya @ Rajesh Pahariya S/o Kamleshwar Pahariya 16 years, represented through Kameshwar Pahariya, S/o Baga Pahariya ( Natural guardian-cum-father), Resident of village- Pairatana, P.O.- Ghagari, P.S. –Sundar Pahariyan, District- Godda …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. ….. Order No. 04/ Dated:26.03.2025 This Criminal Revision has been filed under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care of Protection Act) on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 08.10.2024 passed by Sri Kumar Kranti Prasad, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Pakur in Criminal Appeal No. 38/2024, vide CNR No. JHPK01-001325-2024 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Pakur has dismissed the appeal, in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 23/2024, under section 302/201/34 of IPC thereby affirming the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur vide Misc. Criminal Application No. 1335 of 2024 in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 23/2024/J.C.21/2024 by which the bail of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.05.2024 one Surja Paharia and the juvenile petitioner arrived at house 2 of the Informant and proposed that he wanted to adopt her son Siman Malto as Gharjamai and for marriage he offered and took son of informant to their house for choosing bride on 21.05.2024. Later on on 23.05.2024 Surja Paharia informed the Informant that her son accompanied with his sister went to her house taking Rs. 40,000/- but when after lapse of three days when son of the Informant Siman Malto did not return back then she informed about the matter to her relative and then she contacted to Surja Paharia who did not give any satisfactory answer. Later on 04.06.2024 she came to know that both the accused have committed murder of her son . 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and learned A.P.P. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Court below are illegal and arbitrary not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is a juvenile. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence . It is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 08.06.2024 and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer and submitted that judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below are fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the petitioner was last seen with the deceased boy . It is submitted that the witnesses namely Deva Malto, Shiv Lal Malto, Bangaro Pahariya and Sundra Pahariya whose statement had been recorded in para 24, 25 , 26 and 27 of the case diary, have supported the allegation that 3 the petitioner had taken away the deceased . It is submitted that the petitioner has confessed in para 52 of the case diary for committing the murder of the deceased boy Siman Malto and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected. 6. Perused the Lower Court Records of this case , Social Investigation of the petitioner and considered the submission of both the sides. 7. It appears from the F.I.R. that the petitioner alongwith one Surja Pahariya had arrived at the residence of the Informant and had taken away her son Simon Malto for picking him as the Ghar Jamai. 8. It appears that the witnesses namely Deva Malto, Shiv Lal Malto, Bangaro Pahariya and Sundra Pahariya whose statement are recorded in para 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the case diary, have supported the allegation that the petitioner had taken away the deceased from the house of the informant. 9. It appears that the petitioner has confessed his guilt in para 52 of the case diary for committing the murder of the deceased ( son of the Informant). 10. It appears from para 9 of the case diary that the skeleton of the Death body of the deceased was recovered on 05.06.2024 on the confession of the co-accused Surja Pahariya. 11. This is a case is cold blooded murder of deceased Simon Malto ( Son of the Informant). 12. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act in favour of the petitioner. 4 13. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner Raju Pahariya @ Rajesh Pahariya is rejected. 14. The learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably . 15. Under the circumstances, the judgment dated 08.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Pakur in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2024 and the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur are hereby affirmed. 16. Hence, this Criminal Revision No. 1232 of 2024 is hereby dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Bibha/