Jharkhand High Court
Sonu Singh Aged About 16 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand ......Opp. Party on 3 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
2025:JHHC:11265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No.105 of 2025
....
Sonu Singh aged about 16 years, Son of Late Damodar Singh,
represented through his legal guardian/mother Kiran Devi, Wife
Late Damodar Singh, Resident of village Kadamdih, P.O. & P.S.
Basia, Gumla Jharkhand
......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P
......
Order No.05/03.04.2025
This Criminal Revision Application has been field on
behalf of the juvenile-petitioner by challenging the judgment dated
20.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2024 by Sri
Sanjay Kumar No.2, learned District and Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Kunti by which the appeal has been dismissed and
thereby affirmed the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by Smt.
Vidyavati Kumari, learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice
Board, Kunti in connection with Kunti (Mahila) P.S. Case No.24
of 2023, corresponding POCSO case No.21 of 2023 by which the
prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected and the case has
been instituted under Sections 376,504,506,417 of IPC and Section
4 of the POCSO Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is a juvenile and falsely implicated in this case. It is
submitted that there was love affair between the juvenile-
petitioner and the victim girl and they were known to each other.
2025:JHHC:11265
It is submitted that the petitioner was aged about 15 years and
above and the victim girl was aged about 16 years and above at
the time of occurrence. The case has been instituted by the parents
against the petitioner on refusal to marry with the victim. It is also
submitted that the petitioner is a good student and there is nothing
adverse against the petitioner in Social Investigation Report of the
petitioner submitted by the Probation Officer. The mother of the
petitioner is ready to give undertaking on behalf of the petitioner
to keep her child in proper care and supervision and the juvenile
petitioner is in custody since 27.11.2023 and hence he may be
enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer
for bail. It is submitted that the petitioner has committed heinous
crime by committing rape upon the minor girl by giving false
promise of marriage. It is submitted that one child has been born
due to the physical relationship established between the petitioner
and the victim girl. It is submitted that Trial is in progress and the
victim girl has been examined and she has supported the
prosecution case and hence the prayer of bail may be rejected.
5. Perused the records of this case and considered the
submissions submitted by learned counsel for both the sides.
6. It appears that the victim had lodged the FIR against the
juvenile petitioner for committing the rape upon her by giving
false promise of marriage and for which he established physical
relationship with her several times due to which she become
pregnant for around eight and half months.
7. It appears that from the records that the notice has been
served upon the guardian of the victim girl X but she has not
appeared.
2025:JHHC:11265
8. However, from the perusal of the Lower Court Records, it
appears that the enquiry/Trial is in progress before the learned
Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti.
9. It further appears the four witnesses has been examined so
far including the victim girl.
10. As the trial is in progress as such this Court refrain itself
from giving any finding on the merit of the deposition of the
prosecution witnesses examined on behalf of the victim girl.
11. It also appears that even a child has been borne due to
physical relations made by the petitioner with the victim girl.
12. Considering the facts, that the victim girl has been left
with the child, however having no support from the side of the
petitioner. This Court is not inclined to discretion of Section 21 of
the Juvenile Justice Act in favour of the petitioner.
13. Thus, the prayer for bail is hereby rejected and the order
of Appellate Court and order of Principal Magistrate is hereby
affirmed.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Application No.105
of 2025 is hereby dismissed.
15. However, the learned Court below is directed to conclude
the trial as expeditiously as possible under the Provisions of
Section 14 in terms of the Juvenile Justice Act.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Nishant/-
