1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No 81 of 2025 …. Rupesh Kujur @ Master R. S/o Sandip Kujur, aged about 17 years, represented through his father as well as his legal guardian namely Sandip Kujur, S/o Telesfor Kujur, aged about 51 years, both residents of village-Jurmu, P.O: Hisri, P.S: Dumri, District: Gumla …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shanta Toppo, W/o Amod Toppo, resident of Village: Banduwa, P.O & P.S: Dumri, District: Gumla …… Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A. P. P. …… Order No: 03/Dated: 26.03.2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the juvenile petitioner under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 by challenging the judgment dated 21.10.2024 passed by Sri Prem Shankar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2024 by which the appeal filed on behalf of the juvenile petitioner has been dismissed thereby affirming the order dated 30.08.2024 passed in M.C.A No. 576 of 2024 by the learned Principal Magistrate and learned Members of Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection with Dumri P.S Case No. 05 of 2024 corresponding to G.R Case No. 434 of 2024 by which the bail of the juvenile petitioner has been rejected. 2. The Informant had lodged the F.I.R on 11.03.2024 alleging therein that on 09.03.2024 her daughter i.e. victim girl ‘X’ 2 aged around 15 years and her niece i.e. victim girl ‘Y’ aged around 16 years had gone to Tanginath Fair from their house but did not return by the night then they tried to search both Victim girls but they could not be contacted on mobile due to which, they were perplexed. However, on 11.03.2024 while in course of search, they arrived at Dumri Bus Stand then they saw Victim girl ‘X’ and victim girl ‘Y’ standing there and who disclosed that one Chhotu Lohra along with his friend Rupesh Kujur i.e. the petitioner and one Anuj got both victim girls seated on their motorcycle from Tanginath Fair towards Jairangi village and got them confined inside the room of a house for two (02) days and the co-accused Chhotu Lohra had established physical relationship with victim girl ‘Y’ whereas, Rupesh Kujur (i.e. the juvenile petitioner) had established physical relationship with her daughter i.e. victim girl ‘X’ and they left her from the said house in the morning on 11.03.2024. She had also given the mobile number of one Chhotu Lohral in the F.I.R. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla and Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the juvenile petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the petitioner is a student and is aged around 17 years who was in love affair with the victim and there is no allegation regarding commission of rape upon the victim girl ‘X’ rather there was a consensual physical relationship due to love affair and she did not raise any alarm as alleged in the F.I.R. It is 3 submitted that it is not believable that three (03) persons can forcefully took away two (02) minor girl who are aged around 15 to 16 years from fair. It is submitted that the other co-accused of the allegation of similar footing has been granted bail by the learned Court below. It is further submitted that the father of the juvenile petitioner is ready to take the petitioner in his custody and proper care. It is submitted that there is delay of about two (02) days in lodging of the F.I.R without any sufficient reason as the victim girls were missing since 09.03.2024 but the F.I.R has been lodged on 11.03.2024. It is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 12.03.2024 and hence, the juvenile petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below are fit and proper and no interference is required. 6. It is submitted that there is direct allegation of committing rape upon the victim girl ‘X’ against the juvenile petitioner. It is submitted that the victim girl ‘X’ during her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C has supported the allegation against the juvenile petitioner for forcibly committing rape upon her. It is submitted that there was no love affair between the victim girl and the juvenile petitioner. It is further submitted that apart from the victim girls even the mother of the victim girls in their statement recorded in Para-3 and 31 of case diary have supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that even the witnesses namely Sumendra Toppom, Amod Toppo, Divya Khalkho statements were recorded in Para-32, 33 and 34 of the case diary have supported the allegation against the juvenile petitioner and the co-accused. It 4 is submitted that the victim girls during her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C has fully supported their case which is mentioned in Para-39 and 40 of the case diary and hence, the prayer for bail of the juvenile petitioner may be rejected. 7. Persued the Lower Court Records of this case and considered the submission of both the sides. 8. It appears that the informant had lodged the F.I.R on 11.03.2024 for the occurrence taking place on 09.03.2024 against the juvenile petitioner Rupesh Kujur and co-accused Chhotu Lohra for committing rape upon her daughter i.e. victim girl ‘X’ and also upon her niece i.e. victim girl ‘Y’. 9. It appears that the victim girl ‘X’ and the victim girl ‘Y’ during their respective statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C before Ms. Jaya Smita Kujur, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class on 13.03.2024 have fully supported the prosecution case regarding rape committed upon them by the juvenile petitioner and the co-accused Chhotu Lohra. 10. It appears from the Medical Report that the victim girl ‘X’ i.e. the daughter of the informant was aged around 14-15 years on the date of occurrence and the F.S.L Report was awaited. 11. It appears from the order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla that the juvenile petitioner is a matured boy who is aged more than 17 years on the date of occurrence. 12. It appears that the charges have framed against the juvenile petitioner under Section 366(A), Section 376 of I.P.C and Section 4 of the POCSO Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla on 06.12.2024. 13. From perusal of the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla and the learned Member of Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, it appears 5 that the age of the juvenile petitioner was 17 years 11 months and 27 days on the date of occurrence and Social Investigation Report and RINPASS Report of the juvenile petitioner reveal that the juvenile petitioner is matured enough to understand the nature of offence and also aware of its consequence and as such, the case of the juvenile petitioner was sent to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Gumla under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act. 14. This is a case of forcible rape upon the victim girl ‘X’ by confining her in a room along with her friend victim girl ‘Y’ by the juvenile petitioner and the co-accused Chhotu Lohra. The juvenile petitioner is matured enough to understand the consequences of the acts committed by him. 15. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the juvenile petitioner on bail. 16. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the juvenile petitioner namely Rupes Kujur @ Master R is, hereby, rejected. 17. Thus, the Judgment dated 21.10.2024 passed by Sri Prem Shankar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla and the order dated 30.08.2024 passed in M.C.A No. 576 of 2024 by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla is, hereby, affirmed. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision No. 81 of 2025 is hereby dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Avinash/