2025:JHHC:21332 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.526 of 2025 ------ 1. Amit Ahir, S/o Sri Gona Ahir, R/o Hesabera, Jareya, PO- Jamchuwan, PS- Namkum, District- Ranchi-834010 Jharkhand through his mother and Legal Guardian, Smt. Rita Devi, W/o Sri Gona Ahir, R/o Hesabera, Jareya, PO- Jamchuwan, PS- Namkum, District- Ranchi-834010 Jharkhand. 2. Gopal Ahir, S/o Sri Vishnu Ahir, R/o Hesabera, Jareya, PO- Jamchuwan, PS- Namkum, District- Ranchi-834010 Jharkhand through his mother and Legal Guardian, Smt. Devanti Devi, W/o Sri Vishnu Ahir, R/o Hesabera, , PO- Jamchuwan, PS- Namkum, District- Ranchi-834010 Jharkhand. .... .... Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Informant … …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant s : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. V. S. Sahay, APP ------ Order No. 04 / Dated : 31.07.2025. I.A. No.5290 of 2025. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the aforesaid I.A. filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 84 days in preferring the instant Crl. Appeal (SJ). 2. Considering the grounds taken, the delay of 84 days in preferring the instant Crl. Appeal (SJ) is condoned. The aforesaid I.A. stands allowed. Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.526 of 2025 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the order of rejection of regular bail passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner- IV cum- Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi, in Misc. Criminal Application No.2971 of 2024 arising out of Namkum P.S. Case No.211 of 2024 corresponding to Spl. POCSO Case No.88 of 2024 [Children Case No.10 of 2024] under Section 376(3) IPC and Sections 4/ 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 who are in custody since 07.06.2024. 2025:JHHC:21332 2 2. As per the case of the prosecution, rape was committed with the daughter of the informant aged, 14 years and also with another minor girl, aged 17 years in the night of 04.06.2024 by both the appellants. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that provisions of Section 19(1)(i) of the Juvenile Justice Act has not been observed as no separate order has been passed by the Children Court and the children have been put on trial as an adult only on the preliminary assessment under Section 18(3) of the JJ Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on ratio laid down in Ajeet Gurjar v. State of M.P., (2023) 15 SCC 678 wherein it has been held as under: “11. Therefore, holding an inquiry in terms of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 is not an empty formality. The reason is that if the Children's Court comes to the conclusion that there is no need to try the child as an adult, he will be entitled to be treated differently in the sense that action can be taken against him only in terms of Section 18 of the JJ Act. 12. The observation of the High Court that the order passed under sub- section (3) of Section 18 has attained finality completely ignores that the order under sub-section (3) of Section 18 is not a final adjudication on the question of trying the child as an adult. The reason is that the order under sub-section (3) of Section 18 is based on a preliminary assessment made under Section 15. As such order is based only on a preliminary assessment, the law provides for a further inquiry in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 19 by the competent Children's Court. Hence, the Children's Court cannot brush aside the requirement of holding an inquiry under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 19”. 4. Learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned order. 5. It is submitted that this is a gang rape with minor girls and both of them have fully supported the case of the prosecution and necessary order has already been passed under Section 18(3) of the J. J. Act. 6. So far the legal proposition as canvassed on behalf of the appellants, with regard to the requirement of enquiry to be held in terms of under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 is concerned, the law has been laid down in the authority discussed with abundant clarity that the Children Court is under a mandate to hold enquiry before it proceeds with the trial of the child as an adult as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNSS). In the present case the Children Court does not appear to have held enquiry under this provision. Under the circumstance, it is directed to hold such an enquiry before proceeding any further. 2025:JHHC:21332 3 7. So far, the application of bail is concerned, considering the nature of offence and the materials on record, of double rape committed by the appellants, I do not find any infirmity in the order of dismissal of bail application. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Let the copy of the order passed in Ajeet Gurjar v. State of M.P., (2023) 15 SCC 678, be circulated to all the courts concerned for its compliance before proceeding against a child as an adult. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/