Jharkhand High Court
Ganga Kumar @ Ganga Rajvanshi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.237 of 2021
---
Ganga Kumar @ Ganga Rajvanshi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.
---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel
for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and
video qualities are good.
---
04/17.08.2021: Defects as pointed out by the office is ignored for the time
being.
The instant revision application has been filed against the order
dated 27.02.2021 passed by the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO
Act-cum-Children's Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal
No.05 of 2021. The criminal appeal is against the order dated
25.01.2021, by which the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been
rejected by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Palamau, at Daltonganj in connection with Pandu P.S. Case No.54 of
2020 corresponding to G.R. No.39 of 2021 (in M.C.A. No.4310 of 2020)
registered for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code
and under Sections 4/8 of the POCSO Act. Now, the case is pending in
the court of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Palamau.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
juvenile is in observation home since 13.11.2020 and aged about 14
years. The allegation against the juvenile is that he has committed rape
upon a minor girl aged about 11 years. Further, the learned counsel
submits that the pairwikar is the father of the petitioner and he is ready
and willing to keep his minor son in his custody. On this basis, prayer for
bail has been made.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the social investigation report and the entire
materials available on record and the willingness of the father of the
juvenile-petitioner, the Court is of the opinion that the minor should be
released in favour of his father who is the pairwikar in the present case.
Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Palamau in connection with
Pandu P.S. Case No.54 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.39 of 2021,
subject to condition that one of the bailors must be the father of the
petitioner.
Further, concerned Probation Officer is directed to report, once
in three months, to the Juvenile Justice Board, Palamau regarding the
upkeeping of the minor.
Accordingly, instant criminal revision being Criminal Revision
No.237 of 2021 is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 27.02.2021
passed by the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act-cum-
Children's Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No.05 of
2021 is, hereby, set aside.
From perusal of the entire order-sheet of the J.J. Board,
Palamau especially from the order dated 13.11.2020, it appears that the
age of the juvenile has been assessed on the basis of appearance and
report of the police officer. It is not the correct procedure to assess the
age of the accused if the crime is heinous. It is incumbent upon the
Board to determine the age on the basis of documents as prescribed
under Section 94 of the J.J. Act. If no document is available then on the
basis of the medical board the age should be determined. The assessment
of age on the basis of appearance is only permissible in the case of non-
heinous crime. The Board is directed to be vigilant in future in this type
of matter.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
