Jharkhand High Court
Xxx vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party on 1 August, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 32 of 2024
XXX ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Apurva, Advocate
Ms. Saba Ali, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Advocate
---
07/1st August 2024
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application has been filed for regular bail and for setting aside
the judgment and order dated 20.12.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. Appeal No. 108 of
2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih whereby the
learned court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and has affirmed
the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Giridih in Birni P.S. Case No. 104 of 2023 registered for offence
under Sections 366A/354D/376(3)/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 4/8/12/18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
whereby the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges have
been framed for offence under Sections 366A/354D/376(3)/306/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 4/8/12/18 of the POCSO Act. He has submitted that all
the co-accused who are major have been granted bail by this Court. The order
granting bail to the co-accused has been annexed along with this petition in B.A.
No. 7562/2023 and B.A. No. 7999/2023. The age of the petitioner was about more
than 17 years on the date of occurrence.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has
opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that both the courts have refused to
grant bail to the petitioner by citing reasons and taking into consideration the
social investigation report and that there is no guidance and supervision of the
parents of the petitioner. It has been taken into consideration that there was direct
allegation against the petitioner.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts
and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the application for bail of the
petitioner was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 23.11.2023
not only by recording that the age of the petitioner was 17 years 6 months 15 days
on the date of occurrence but also considering the social investigation report
which reveal that there was lack of control by the parents of the petitioner and
there was a likelihood that he may get in association with anti-social elements.
The appellate court has also considered this aspect of the matter.
6. This Court is of the considered view that both the courts have considered
the social investigation report of the petitioner and has refused to enlarge the
petitioner on bail. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned
orders refusing bail to the petitioner calling for any interference in revisional
jurisdiction.
7. So far as the bail granted to other co-accused who were major are
concerned, the same has no bearing in the present case. The co-accused were
granted bail on the submission that this petitioner was the main accused in the
matter. Further, the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in heinous offence
and considering the social investigation report and the nature of offence the
petitioner has been rightly denied bail.
8. In view of the aforesaid fact and circumstances and there being no
perversity or illegality in the impugned orders this court finds no reasons to
interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.
9. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that they will
ensure prompt production of witnesses as and when they are called upon to do so.
10. Name and other details of the petitioner should reflect as 'XXX' in this
order to be uploaded in the official website of this Court.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through
'e-mail/FAX'.
Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
