2025:JHHC:15739 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1100 of 2024 ------ Panchanand Mandal @ Pancha Mandal @ Panchanand Kumar aged about 16 years, son of Sri Maheshwar Mandal, resident of Village-Beludih, P.O. Gadi Jhopa, P.S- Saraiyahat, District-Dumka, represented through his natural guardian and mother of the petitioner namely Sudama Devi wife of Mahesh Mandal @ Maheshwar Mandal, resident of Village-Beludih, P.O. Gadi Jhopa, P.S- Saraiyahat, District Dumka, At present residing at Village- Mohali Tola, Punsiya, P.O. & P.S-Rikhiya, District Deoghar ..…… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Party ------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, APP For the Informant : Md. Faiz, Advocate ------ 08/Dated:16th June, 2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the Juvenile-petitioner by challenging the judgment dated 07.09.2024 passed by Sri Rajeev Ranjan, learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum- Children Court, Deoghar in Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No. 37 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 02.07.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar in connection with Rikhiya P.S Case No.83 of 2024 (E.N. No.179 of 2024) instituted under section 376AB, 511 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. As per F.I.R, the petitioner is alleged to have attempted to commit rape upon the minor daughter of the informant aged about 04 years by inducing her. 2025:JHHC:15739 2 3. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned APP for the State and Md. Faiz, learned counsel for the Informant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is juvenile and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the allegation of attempting to commit rape upon the Victim girl is not correct. It is submitted that mother of the petitioner will take proper care and custody and provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act is proved in his favour. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 30.05.2024 and there is nothing adverse against him in the Social Investigation Report and is ready to face the trial and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner for attempting to commit rape upon the Victim girl and hence the prayer for bail of the juvenile- petitioner may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant after adopting the submission of learned APP has further submitted that the petitioner has committed heinous offence and has tried to commit rape upon the daughter of the informant which is supported by the Victim girl recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected. 7. Perused the F.I.R, case diary and the statement of the Victim girl recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C and considered the submission of both the sides. 8. It appears from the F.I.R that the Victim girl has supported the allegation against the Juvenile-Petitioner for 2025:JHHC:15739 3 attempting to commit rape upon her under section 164 Cr.P.C on 07.06.2024 and the petitioner had closed her mouth and took her to the Jungle situated behind her house and had open her pant and in the meantime, her Nani came and the petitioner fled away. 9. It appears from the report dated 05.04.2025 sent by Sri Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar that five (05) witnesses including the informant and Victim have been examined so far and only I.O and one more witness are to be examined. 10. It appears that the trial is at the fag end. 11. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the Juvenile petitioner on bail at this stage. 12. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the Juvenile petitioner is rejected. 13. Under the circumstances, the judgment dated 07.09.2024 passed by Sri Rajeev Ranjan, learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum- Children Court, Deoghar in Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No. 37 of 2024 and the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar in connection with Rikhiya P.S Case No.83 of 2024 (E.N. No.179 of 2024) are upheld. 14. However, learned Court below is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible and some compensation may be awarded to the Victim girl. 15. Thus, Cr. Rev. No.1100 of 2024 is hereby dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/