Jharkhand High Court
Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Mandal @ Mukesh ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2024
---------
Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Mandal @ Mukesh Kumar
Mandal, aged about 15 years, son of Kameshwar
Mandal, R/o Village Nagri, P.O Nagri and P.S.
Nimiaghat, District-Giridih (Jharkhand) represented
through its natural guardian (Mother) Pushpa Devi
aged about 40 yeas, wife of Kameshwar Mandal, R/o
Village Nagri, P.O. Nagri and P.S. Nimiaghat, District-
Giridih (Jharkhand)
..... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Pramila Devi, D/o Shankar Pandit, R/o Nagari,
P.S.Nimiaghat, District-Giridih
..... Opp. Parties
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.
For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Ayub Ansari, Advocate
---------
10 /27.01.2025 This Criminal Revision Application has
been filed on behalf of the Juvenile in conflict with law
challenging the judgment date 13.12.2023, passed by Shri
Gopal Pandey, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Giridih in Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 102 of 2023,
by which the bail of the juvenile-Petitioner was rejected
thereby dismissing the said Criminal Miscellaneous
Appeal and affirming the order dated 11.09.2023, passed
by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih in
connection with Nimiaghat P.S. Case No.59 of 2023, by
which the bail of the juvenile-Petitioner has been rejected
by the learned Members of the Juvenile Justice Board,
Giridih.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
18.07.2023, while the victim girl, who was aged about
eight years at the time of occurrence, was returning to her
house after taking tuition, then at that time, her neighbor,
i.e. the juvenile petitioner, called her and forcibly took the
victim girl at a distance of 200 meters near a pond and
committed rape upon her due to which blood started
coming out of her private parts and the victim girl
narrated the incident to her mother. On the basis of
written application submitted by the mother of the Victim
girl (Name not disclosed in the view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Nipun Saxena
and another v. Union of India and others" reported in
(2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 703), the Police had
instituted Nimiaghat P.S. Case No.59 of 2023 under
Section 376 AB of the I.P.C. and Section 4/6 of the
POCSO Act against the juvenile-Petitioner.
3. Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned Sr. Counsel for
the juvenile-petitioner has submitted that the impugned
judgment and order passed by then learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Giridih and the learned Juvenile Justice
Board, Giridih respectively are illegal, arbitrary and not
sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that both the
learned Appellate Court and the Juvenile Justice Board
have failed to consider the benevolent provisions of
Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of
Children) Act. It is submitted that even as per Section 14
(2) of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act,
the enquiry has to be completed within four months from
the date the child was brought before them, which can be
extended for a period of further two additional months
only. It is further submitted that the Social Investigation
Report submitted by the Probation Officer is in favour of
the juvenile-Petitioner. It is submitted that the juvenile-
Petitioner is a student and wants to study and hence, he
may be enlarged on bail as he is in custody since
19.07.2023, i.e. for more than one and half year.
4. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P.
appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail
and submitted that the juvenile has committed heinous
offence of rape upon the victim girl, who was aged about
eight (08) years at the time of occurrence and hence, the
prayer for bail may be rejected.
5. The learned counsel for the Informant,
after adopting the submission of the learned A.P.P.
appearing for the State, has further submitted that the
juvenile-Petitioner has committed heinous offence of rape
upon the victim girl, who was aged about eight (08) years
on the date of occurrence. It is submitted that the victim
girl, during her statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. has also supported the commission of rape upon
her by this juvenile-Petitioner. Thus, no illegality has been
committed by the learned Courts below by rejecting the
bail of the juvenile-petitioner and thus, this Criminal
Revision Application may be dismissed.
6. Perused the records of this case and
considered the submission of both sides.
7. It appears that there is direct allegation
against the juvenile-Petitioner for committing rape upon
the minor victim girl, who was aged about Seven (07) -
Eight (08) years on the date of occurrence.
8. It further reveals from the Medical Report
of the victim girl mentioned at Paragraph No. 64 of the
Case Diary that Hymen had small injury at 9 'O' Clock
and 6 'O' Clock position & injury over introitus seen, that
bleeds on touch and therefore, possibility of sexual
assault cannot be ruled out.
9. It further reveals at Para 71 of the Case
Diary that the statement of the victim girl was recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the victim girl had
supported the allegation of commission of rape upon her
by the juvenile-Petitioner.
10. It appears that the victim girl, during her
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on
19.07.2023 and also during her statement recorded before
the Child Welfare Committee on 21.07.2023, has
supported the allegation of commission of rape upon her
by this juvenile-Petitioner.
11. This Court finds that the learned Appellate
Court had considered the Social Investigation Report of
the juvenile-Petitioner and has declined the bail to the
juvenile-Petitioner.
12. This Court also finds that this is not one
of those exceptional cases in which this Court can
exercise its discretion in favour of the juvenile-Petitioner
in the light of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care &
Protection of Children) Act.
13. Therefore, this Criminal Revision
Application is devoid of merit as allowing bail to the
juvenile-Petitioner at this stage would add insult to the
injury sustained by the minor victim girl, who was aged
about Eight (08) years on the date of occurrence.
14. Therefore, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in view of the discussions
made above, this Criminal Revision Application is
dismissed and the judgment dated 13.12.2023, passed by
Shri Gopal Pandey, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Giridih in Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 102 of 2023,
and the order dated 11.09.2023, passed by the learned
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih in
connection with Nimiaghat P.S. Case No.59 of 2023 are
affirmed.
15. Thus, this Criminal Revision Application
No. 154 of 2024 is dismissed.
16. However, the Juvenile Justice Board,
Giridih is directed to conclude its enquiry as expeditiously
and as early as possible.
Let copies of this order be sent to the
learned Courts below.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
s.m.
