Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12555 (JHR)

BUDA ORAON REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS MOTHER CHARIYA ORAON v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.Rev./437/2026 · 2026-05-06

Rongon Mukhopadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:13562 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 437 of 2026 ------- Buda Oraon, aged about 16 years, son of Budhram Oraon, resident of village Atakhora, P.O. Mahadev, P.S. Bharno, District Gumla, represented through his mother namely Chariya Oraon. …... …. Petitioner (s) Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. …. Opp. Party -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY -------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kumar Nishant, Advocate Mr. A. K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P. Order No. 02/ Dated 06.05.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P on behalf of the State. This application is directed against the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla in Cr. Appeal Case No. 43 of 2025, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection with Bharno P.S. Case No.17 of 2025, rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been affirmed. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been an inordinate delay of 20 days in lodging the First Information Report. It has further been submitted that there is a love affair between the petitioner and the victim and in fact, both had eloped and had gone to Bihar where they were working in a brick-kiln, from where, they were apprehended after two months. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is an Observation Home since 14.05.2025. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. It appears from the allegation that suspicion was cast upon the petitioner of enticing away the daughter of the informant. Subsequently, in course of investigation, the petitioner and the daughter of the informant were apprehended and it appears that the victim had stayed with the petitioner for two months, which strengthens the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the love affair existing between the petitioner and the victim. -2- On consideration of the aforesaid facts, while setting aside the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla in Cr. Appeal Case No. 43 of 2025 and the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in Bharno P.S. Case No.17 of 2025, direct that the petitioner, above named, be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond 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, Gumla, in connection with Bharno P.S. Case No.17 of 2025, subject to the condition that the mother of the petitioner shall ensure the safety of the petitioner and shall further ensure that the petitioner is kept away from anti-social elements. This application is, accordingly, allowed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Dated 06/05/2026 BS/-