Jharkhand High Court
Anup Bhengra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.873 of 2022
Anup Bhengra ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opp. Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Kr. Ganjhu, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, APP
-----
7/13.04.2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
learned APP appearing on behalf of State.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that this criminal revision application has been preferred for setting
aside the judgment and order dated 13.07.2022 passed by learned
Distt. & Addl. Sessions Judge 1st Khunti, in Criminal Appeal No.
13/2022, by which, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant-
petitioner under section 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 was dismissed, which was preferred against the
order dated 23.05.2022 passed by learned Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti in connection with Tapkara P.S case No.
12 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections
323,342,504,506,363,376(DB)/34 of 1.P.C and u/s 4/6 POCSO Act
whereby and where under the learned court has rejected the prayer
for bail of this juvenile.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that this petitioner is a child in conflict with law aged about 10 years
10 months and 15 days at the time of the commission of the offence
and he is not named in the FIR. It has been pointed out that the victim
has been examined during the course of the enquiry and it is found
that only 4 persons had committed rape with the victim, although
there were 6 persons present there and the petitioner is said to be one
of the 6 persons and the name of this petitioner has been pointed out
only on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused.
Further it has also been pointed out that there is no adverse
report in the social investigation report of this petitioner. It has also
been pointed out from the social investigation report that this
petitioner wanted to continue his study and the parents are ready to
give an undertaking to that effect and it has also come in the case
diary that because of the lack of proper guardianship and caring, this
petitioner is alleged to have involved in such type of offence and he is
in the observation home since 22/04/2022 and therefore he deserves
to be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and
submitted that it is admitted case of the prosecution that there were 6
children, who are said to have committed the offence of gang rape
with the victim and the petitioner was one of them, although the name
of this petitioner has not been specifically disclosed by the victim, but
she has categorically stated that there were 6 persons, who have
committed the offence and she knew the name of 4 persons out of 6
persons and therefore the name of only 4 persons were disclosed by
her, which is evident from her reinstatement recorded by the police
either under sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. or during the course of
trial and when her depositions are appreciated in totality, it is found
that the victim has supported and corroborated the involvement of
this petitioner also in the commission of the offence and therefore he
does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case.
It is found that this petitioner is a child in conflict with law aged
about 10 years 10 months and 15 days and he is one of the 6 persons,
who had committed rape with the victim, who is aged about 10 years
at the time of the offence. It has also been found that it is a case of
gang rape, where 6 persons have committed the offence of rape with
the 10 years old child and this petitioner is one of them and during the
course of the deposition recorded in the inquiry, it is found that there
were 6 persons in total, although the victim knew the name of only
4 persons out of 6 persons and therefore she has taken the name of
only 4 persons out of the total 6 persons involved in the commission of
the of offence of gang rape, which is evident from the depositions as
recorded during the course of the enquiry of PW6.
Further it is evident from the social Investigating report that this
petitioner (child in conflict with law) has committed this offence of
gang rape along with other children-in-conflict with law due to lack of
parental control and due to intermingling of this CCL with bad
company and due to bad influence of peer group. Therefore the
release of this petitioner will surely bring him into association of
known criminals. Further it is manifest that this petitioner being a
child-in-conflict with law has committed gang rape in association with
other children in conflict with law with a minor child of about 10-11
years in a very ruthless and inhuman manner and hence the child
would be exposed to mental, moral, physical and social danger to life
and as such in the interest of justice, it is not conducive to enlarge the
petitioner on bail at this stage of enquiry which is going on before the
concerned Juvenile Justice Board and the prayer of co-children in
conflict with law involved in the alleged offence of gang rape has also
been rejected and the case of this petitioner is also on similar footing.
Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner to be enlarged on bail is
rejected at this stage in this case.
This criminal revision is dismissed and the order dated
13.07.2022 passed by learned appellate Court of Distt. & Addl.
Sessions Judge 1st Khunti, in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2022 and the
order dated 23.05.2022 passed by learned Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti in connection with Tapkara P.S. case
No. 12 of 2022 are hereby confirmed.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
