Jharkhand High Court
Chandan Kumar Ravidas @ Chandan Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
2025:JHHC:14828
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1060 of 2024
------
Chandan Kumar Ravidas @ Chandan Kumar, aged about 17 years,
represented through natural guardian elder brother namely Baban
Kumar Ravidas, aged about 24 years, Son of Sakhichandra Ravidas,
Resident of village Mahagama, P.O-Mahagama (Basua) Hospital
Road, Mahagama, P.S-Mahagama, District-Godda, Jharkhand
...... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Victim Miss X through Father ...... Opp. Parties
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the petitioner : Mr. Vinay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate
------
th
07/Dated:09 June, 2025
This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf
of the Juvenile petitioner by challenging the judgment dated
25.06.2024 passed by Sri Janardan Singh, learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Godda in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2024 by
which appeal has been dismissed and the prayer for bail of the
Juvenile petitioner has been rejected thereby affirming the order
dated 04.06.2024 passed by learned In-charge, Principal
Magistrate and Members of the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Godda in connection with G.R. No.1744 of 2024, arising out of
Mahagama P.S Case No.263 of 2024 for the offence under section
366A of IPC, who had also rejected the bail of the petitioner.
2. As per FIR lodged by the father of the Victim girl when he
returned to his house on 18.11.2023 after closing his shop then he
found that his elder daughter is missing and heard that petitioner
Chandan Kumar Ravidas has enticed his minor daughter.
3. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned APP for the State
and Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
2025:JHHC:14828
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below
are illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that
there was love affair between the petitioner and the Victim girl and
both were working in Mahalaxmi Vastralaya and they were
acquainted with each other for last several months. It is submitted
that petitioner is still ready to marry with the Victim girl on
attaining her age of majority. It is submitted that the Victim girl,
during her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, has also
stated that she had voluntarily gone with the petitioner and has
married with him. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody
since 22.11.2023. It is submitted that there is nothing against him
in the Social Investigation Report. It is submitted that the mother
of the petitioner is blind whereas the father of the petitioner is
mentally retarded and person of unsound mind and hence the
Juvenile- petitioner may be released on bail in care and custody of
his elder brother namely Baban Kumar Ravidas.
5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that Victim girl is minor aged around 15
years and the provisions of POCSO Act is also attracted and hence
the prayer for bail of the juvenile-petitioner may be rejected and
the Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2, after adopting the
submission of learned APP, has submitted that the petitioner has
enticed the minor daughter of the informant and has established
physical relationship with the Victim girl. It is submitted that the
Victim girl during her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C
before the police has admitted that the petitioner had established
physical relationship with her. However, learned counsel for the
O.P. No.2 has not controverted the statement made by the Victim
girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C recorded before the Judicial
2025:JHHC:14828
Magistrate. It is submitted that marriage between the parties is not
possible as both the petitioner and the O.P. No.2 are minor. It is
submitted that the statements of father and mother of the Victim
girl have been recorded in paragraph 4 and 5 of the case diary and
one Raj Kumar Sah and Sudhir Kumar Sah whose statements have
been recorded in paragraph nos.6 and 7 of the case diary and they
have fully supported the allegation of the petitioner for enticing
the daughter of the informant and hence the prayer for bail of the
petitioner may be rejected.
7. Perused the Lower Court Records, case diary and
considered the submission of both the sides.
8. It appears from the FIR that petitioner is alleged to have
enticed the minor daughter of the informant for the purpose of
marriage.
9. It appears to be a case of inter-caste marriage between the
petitioner and the Victim girl.
10. Though the Victim girl is said to have stated under section
161 Cr.P.C that the petitioner has established the physical
relationship with her at paragraph 17 of the case diary, however,
the Victim girl during her statement recorded under section 164 of
Cr.P.C before Ms. Kirti Kumari Barnwal, learned Judicial
Magistrate , Godda on 22.11.2023 has not stated about the physical
relationship between the petitioner and herself i.e. the daughter of
the O.P. No.2.
11. It reveals from the statement of Victim girl recorded under
section 164 Cr.P.C on 22.11.2023 that she had voluntarily moved
with the petitioner and both were having love affairs with each
other and she is also said to have performed marriage with the
petitioner.
12. Under the circumstances and also considering the custody
of the Juvenile petitioner and also considering the statement of the
2025:JHHC:14828
Victim girl recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, the juvenile
petitioner-Chandan Kumar Ravidas @ Chandan Kumar is directed
to be released on bail in care and supervision of his elder brother
namely, Baban Kumar Ravidas on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned In-charge
Principal Magistrate of the Juvenile Justice Board, Godda in
connection with G.R. No.1744 of 2024, arising out of Mahagama
P.S Case No.263 of 2024, subject to the condition that the
guardian of the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the
O.P. No.2 by way of victim compensation and also that the
brother of the petitioner namely, Baban Kumar Ravidas must file
an Undertaking before the learned Court below that the juvenile-
petitioner will not get indulged in such type of crime in future
again, otherwise prosecution will be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of his bail and the brother of the juvenile-petitioner
will submit his mobile number before the learned Court below,
which he will always keep active and will not change it, during the
pendency of this case, without prior permission of the Court and
shall produce the juvenile-petitioner as and when required.
13. Accordingly, in view of the above, the judgment dated
25.06.2024 passed by Sri Janardan Singh, learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Godda in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2024 and
the order dated 04.06.2024 passed by learned In-charge, Principal
Magistrate and Members of the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Godda in connection with G.R. No.1744 of 2024, arising out of
Mahagama P.S Case No.263 of 2024, are set aside.
14. Thus, the Criminal Revision No.1060 of 2024 is allowed
and stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Saket/
