( 2025:JHHC:16609 ) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. RevisionNo. 1260 of 2024 …. Ashish Kumar@Ashish Kumar Gupta, son of Manoj Gupta@Manoj Kumar aged about 16 years, represented through his father and natural guardian Manoj Gupta, @Manoj Kumar son of Chandrika Prasad, resident of village Garu Bazar, PO &PS Garu District, Latehar, Jharkhand …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shandhya Devi W/o Sanjay Oraon r/o Village Samodhtola, PO& PS Garu, district Latehar …… Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul,Advocate For the State : Mr.SardhuMahto,A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate …… ORAL ORDER IN COURT 11/23.06.2025 The present Criminal Revision No. 1260 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the juvenile-petitioner under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 challenging the judgment dated 12.11.2024 passed by Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Children Court, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2024 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Lateharhas dismissed the appeal and rejected the prayer for bail of the juvenile- petitioner and affirmed the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Lateharin connection withGaru P. S. Case No. 22 of 2024 corresponding to special POCSO No. 25 of 2024 in ER No. 14 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Section 376, 511, 34 of the IPC and 4/8 of POCSO Act by which prayer ( 2025:JHHC:16609 ) -2- for bail of the juvenile-petitioner was rejected. 2. As per the FIR, it is alleged that the daughter of the informant aged about 12 years,went to take bath on 04.06.2024 in Koyal river and while she was returning back to her house then the juvenile-petitioner Ashish Kumar and one Sumit Yadav caught hold of her and tried to commit rape upon her and started making video. However, the victim succeeded to flee away from their clutches. Due to fear the victim girl told about the occurrence to her mother-informant after some days, hence this case was registered on 13.07.2024. 3. Heard learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 4. It is submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is further submitted that the juvenile-petitioner is innocent and the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR, are false and concocted. It is submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 04.06.2024 and however, the F.I.R was lodged on 13.07.2024, i.e. after the delay of 37 days and hence the prosecution case is doubtful. It is submitted that both the juvenile and the victim girl are studying in the same school and hence due to some village politics the informant has falsely implicated the juvenile-petitioner and other juvenile in this case. It is submitted that the father of the juvenile-petitioner is ready to take complete supervision and proper care of the juvenile petitioner and is ready to abide by any conditions laid down by this Court. It is further submitted that the juvenile-petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2024 and hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the juvenile-petitioner and has ( 2025:JHHC:16609 ) -3- submitted that there is direct allegationagainst the juvenile- petitioner for trying to commit rape upon the victim girl and also for making video thereof. It is further submitted that according to para 60 and 61 of the case diary, the witnesses namely Ram Prasad Oraon and SalimaKumari, who were examined under section 180 B.N.S.S, have supported the prosecution case. 6. The learned counsel for the informant, after adapting the submission of the learned APP, has also submitted that the informant and the victim have also supported the case of prosecution case in their statements recorded under section 183 of the B.N.S.S and as such, the juvenile-petitioner may not be given the benefit of Section 12 of the J. J. Act. 7. Perused the Lower Court Records of this case and considered the submission of both the sides. 8. It appears from the FIR that there is direct allegation against the juvenile-petitioner trying tocommit rape upon the victim girl aged about 12 years, but she managed to flee away from the clutches of the juvenile -petitioner and one other co-accused Sumit Yadav. 9. It also appears from para-16 of the case diary that there is seizure of one pen drive and para 38 of the case diary shows the seizureof one mobile phonewithout any SIM card,in which the video is said to be prepared. 10. It would appear from the statement of the victim girl recorded under section183 of the BNSS that the juvenile-petitioner has tried to commit rape upon her. It also appears from the FIR that mother of the victim girl had learnt about the occurrence from one shopkeeper and thereafter she has instituted the present case. 11. It also reveals from the LCR that four witnesses have been ( 2025:JHHC:16609 ) -4- examined during trial before the learned Juvenile Justice Board. 12. Considering the fact that petitioner has tried to commit rape upon the victim girl, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the juvenile-petitioner. Hence the prayer for bail of the juvenile- petitioner is rejected at this stage. 13. Accordingly, the judgment dated 12.11.2024 passed by Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Children Court, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2024 and the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Latehar in connection with Garu P. S. Case No. 22 of 2024 corresponding to special POCSO No. 25 of 2024 in ER No. 14 of 2024 are upheld. 14. However, the learned Court below is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible. 15. Thus the Criminal Revision No. 1260 of 2024 is dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Abha/