Jharkhand High Court
Golu Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 January, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.652 of 2020
Golu Paswan
@ Srikant Paswan ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Advocate
Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. B. N. Ojha, A.P.P
---------
02/Dated: 07th January, 2021
1. This revision is directed against the judgment/ order
dated 01.07.2020, passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge -I, Ramgarh in Criminal Appeal (Bail) No.32 of 2020,
whereby the prayer for bail of the petitioner/ juvenile (in
conflict with law) has been rejected in connection with
Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No.161 of 2019, registered
under Sections 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 4, 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. As pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, it
appears that Manoj Paswan, father of the appellant, had
lodged F.I.R being Patratu P.S. Case No.116 of 2018 under
Section 366 I.P.C, against Prem Soni, father of the victim
girl. It also appears that by order dated 24.06.2019 prayer
for bail of the father of the prosecutrix was rejected by the
learned Single Bench in B.A. No.9654 of 2018. Thereafter
the present case was lodged by the prosecutrix's father on
25.06.2019.
The allegation is that the appellant had attempted to
commit rape on the prosecutrix and inserted paper role in
her private part, but in the impugned order there is no
mention of any injuries sustained by the prosecutrix on her
private part.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two
sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ramgarh, in
connection with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No.161 of
2019, on the condition that one of the bailors shall be a
close relative/ natural guardian, who shall give an
undertaking (i) to ensure the good behaviour of the
petitioner, (ii) to ensure that the juvenile petitioner does
not come in contact with any anti-social elements, and (iii)
produce the juvenile/petitioner before the Probation Officer
as and when directed by the Board. The Probation Officer
shall submit the supervision report to the Board for
needful.
3. In case of any adverse report, the Board is at liberty
to pass necessary order in accordance with the provisions
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015. The petitioner/juvenile shall co-operate and be
present before the Board as and when directed, till
conclusion of the enquiry.
4. With the aforesaid direction, the revision is, hereby,
allowed.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)
Chandan/-
