Jharkhand High Court
Sumit Kumar Prasad @ Sumit Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2023
1 Cr. Revision No. 906 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 906 of 2022
------
Sumit Kumar Prasad @ Sumit Prasad ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Pawan Singh ... ... Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
--------
Order No. 04: Dated: 27 February, 2023
th
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
This criminal revision application has been preferred against
the judgment dated 10.08.2022 passed by the court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in
Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the
appeal preferred by the petitioner u/s 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act against the order dated 27.06.2022
passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Jamshedpur in connection with Bagbera P.S. Case No. 79 of 2022,
registered for the offence under section 376 of IPC and under section
4 of POCSO Act, was dismissed and thereby upheld the order dated
27.06.2022, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile
Justice Board, Jamshedpur in connection Bagbera P.S. Case No. 79
of 2022.
It has been submitted that the petitioner is child (in conflict
with law) aged 17 years 5 months 15 days. Learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the
petitioner is that he had established physical relationship with the
daughter of the informant who was minor aged about 15 years. It
has been pointed out that there is no offence either u/s 376 of IPC or
u/s 4 of POCSO Act, in view of the categorical statements of the
victim recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. where she clearly stated that both
were in love with each other since last two years and they had been
in physical relationship since then. It has been submitted that on the
date of occurrence, the informant and the father of the victim had
come to the house and have come to know about their physical
relationship and then the case was instituted although she
categorically stated that neither any kind of coercion, force, or any
enticement or inducement has been used by this petitioner in the
commission of the alleged offence which has never been committed
by the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is
a student of I.Sc. First year in a college at Jamshedpur and from the
social investigation report, it is found that his elder brother is also
educated and due to negligence on the part of the parents he is
alleged to have involved in such types of alleged act. It has further
been submitted that as per the social investigation report there is
nothing against the petitioner neither he is having any criminal
history nor any kind of bad habits are found against this petitioner
and therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the
State assisted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no. 2 vehemently opposed the contentions raised on
behalf of the appellant and submitted that the victim is a minor aged
15 years and therefore consensual relationship does not matter at all
and the offence u/s 4 of POCSO Act and section 376 of IPC is made
and therefore, he does not deserves to be released on bail.
Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case.
This petitioner is child in conflict in law and he is aged about
17 years, 5 months 18 days on the date of occurrence. It is admitted
case of the prosecution that from the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of
the victim that she and the petitioner (child in conflict with law) had
been in love with each other for a long period of time and also
consensual physical relationship between them was there since last
two years. It was alleged that the victim who asked this petitioner
(child in conflict in law) came to her house and she had established
physical relationship with him and there is no any coercion, force or
any kind on enticement or inducement or any kind of promise of
marriage has been stated by the victim in the statement record u./s
164 Cr.P.C. It is further found that the petitioner, the child (in
conflict with law) is in custody since 23.05.2022 and from the social
investigation report it is found that he is obedient, and has been
very cordial relationship with his peer groups and friends. It is also
found from the social investigation report that he is respectful and
obedient to his elder. Further, it is also found that there is no
criminal history against this petitioner and, therefore, possibility of
this petitioner to come in association with known criminal is very
remote. Further, it has also come in evidence that no any kind of
inducement, coercion, force or any kind of inducement has been
used by the petitioner in the alleged offence on the date of offence
and the victim herself called him and established physical
relationship with him and this had been continuing since last two
years. The petitioner, the child in conflict in law, is a student of I.Sc.
1st year as evident from the para 31 of the Social investigation
report. Therefore, in the interest of justice it is found just and proper
to give one opportunity to the petitioner to come into main stream
of the society and to continue with his study. It is also found that by
further remaining in the observation will rather cause his physical,
mental, moral or psychological danger to his life and therefore, it is
in the interest of justice, to provide him one opportunity to continue
with study and to come into the main stream of the society.
In the backdrop, the petitioner is directed to be released on
bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands
only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of
learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur in
connection with Bagbera P.S. Case No. 79 of 2022 subject to the
condition as stated u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. subject to the further
conditions as stated below:-
i. One of the bailers will be one of the parents.
ii. Father of the petitioner will give an undertaking that he
will continue the study of the child.
iii. The legal and probation officer will conduct counseling
of the child in order to ensure his studies further.
iv. The petitioner will co-operate in the trial /enquire
pending in the court below.
v. Any other order as the learned court below may deem fit
and proper.
Let a copy of the order be sent to Secretary DLSA,
Jamshedpur, the Principal District and Sessions Judge,-cum
Chariman DLSA, Jamsehdpur, Deputy Commissioner-cum-vice
Chairman, DLSA Jamshedpur in order to ensure that the direction
given by this court is compiled in letter and spirit.
Accordingly, this Criminal revision is allowed. The order and
judgment dated 10.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal
Appeal No. 107 of 2022 and also the order dated 27.06.2022 passed
by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Jamshedpur in connection with Bagbera P.S. Case No. 79 of 2022, is
set aside.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
MM
