Jharkhand High Court
Sandip Kumar Yadav Aged 17 Years ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 740 of 2021
---------
Sandip Kumar Yadav aged 17 years and 11 months through his
Father Chandrika Yadav ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gopal K. Sinha , Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
---------
Order No. 09/ Dated: 10.11.2022
Despite issuance of notice to the O.P. No. 2 vide order dated
29.08.2022 passed by this Court , the informant had not appeared as yet.
2. This Criminal Revision No. 740 of 2021 has been filed on behalf
of the petitioner under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children Act, 2015) by challenging the judgment dated
25.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Garhwa in Criminal Appeal
No. 10 of 2021 by rejecting the bail of the petitioner and by which learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children
Court, Garhwa has dismissed the appeal by affirming the order dated
28.06.2021 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Garhwa in connection with Chiniya P.S. Case No. 12 of 2021 for the
offences under section 376 (3) of the I.P.C., section 4 of the POCSO Act
and Section 3 (i) (w) (ii)/ 3 (2) (V) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of
Atrocities.) Act.
3. As per the F.I.R., it is alleged that two boys namely Sandip
Kumar Yadav and Awinash Kumar Sao had been caught by the villagers
with the two girls in objectionable condition on 28.03.2021 and their one
co-accused Awinash Kumar Sao was apprehended but Sandip Kumar
Yadav fled away .
-2
4. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the State.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is a juvenile and has been falsely implicated by the villagers . It
is submitted that the victim girls have admitted that she had gone with
the juvenile petitioner on their own wills, however they have been
caught by the villagers on the charges of committing rape upon them by
the juvenile petitioner and co-accused. It is submitted that no sign of rape
was found by the Doctor upon the victim girl. It is submitted that the
father of the petitioner is ready to care of him and undertakes to take
proper care and control him. It is submitted that the petitioner is in
custody since 03.04.2021 i.e. more than one and half years and hence, the
juvenile petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
6. On the other hand, the learned A .P.P. appearing for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim girl is a minor
girl and as such her consent is immaterial . It is submitted that the brother
of this juvenile petitioner is involved in the murder case instituted under
section 302 of the I.P.C. and hence the background of the petitioner is
not proper and his release will expose him to further moral danger and
hence, the prayer for bail of the juvenile petitioner may be rejected.
7. Perused the scanned copies of the Lower Court Records of this
case and Social Investigation of the juvenile petitioner and considered the
submission of both the sides.
8. It appears from the F.I.R. that two boys including this juvenile
petitioner was caught by the villagers with two victim girls in
objectionable condition, however this juvenile petitioner had fled away
from the place of occurrence.
9. Perusal the statement of the victim girls recorded under section
164 Cr.P.C. , it would appear that they had voluntarily gone with the
juvenile petitioner and the other co-accused person.
-3
10. Considering the custody of the juvenile petitioner and on the
fact and in the circumstance of this case the Juvenile petitioner namely
Sandip Kumar Yadav is directed to be released on bail in the custody and
guardianship to his Father on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only ) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Garhwa in connection with Chiniya P.S. Case No. 12 of 2021 subject to
the condition that both the bailers must be own relatives and one of the
bailers must be Father and the Father of the juvenile shall furnish an
Undertaking that the juvenile petitioner will appear before the trial Court
as and when required, and Father of the juvenile shall also furnish his
self attested copy of his Aadhar Card and also submit his mobile number
before the learned Court below and which shall remain active and shall
not change his mobile number during the pendency of this case and father
of the juvenile petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the District -
Garhwa and without prior permission of the learned Court below, and the
Father of the juvenile must file an Undertaking that this juvenile
petitioner will not get indulged in such type of crime in future again
otherwise, the prosecution will be at liberty to take steps for cancellation
of his bail.
11. Therefore in view of above the judgment dated 25.11.2021
passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I-cum-
Special Judge, Children Court, Garhwa and order dated 28.06.2021
passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Garhwa are
set aside.
12. Thus this Criminal Revision No. 740 of 2021 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Bibha/
