Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14212 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.100 of 2024 --------- Rohit Kullu, aged 17 years, through Father and Natural Guardian Numash Kullu, both Residents of Vill:- Bansh Pahar, P.O. & P.S:-T.Tanger, Dist. Simdega ..… Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent With Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.776 of 2023 ----------- Awkash Tete, aged about 18 years, through his guardian brother Anmol Bhusan Tete, S/o Shri Ahlad Kalyan Tete, Resident of Village-Latapani, Gamhairtoli, P.O. & P.S. –T.Tanger District-Simdega (Jharkhand) ..… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Victim of Kolebira P.S. Case No. 58 of 2022 ….. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellants : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P. For the Victim : Mr. Ayub Ansari, Advocate ---------- ORAL ORDER IN COURT 11/01.05.2025 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.100 of 2024 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant, namely Rohit Kullu, by challenging the order dated 03.11.2023, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 501 of 2023, by Ms. Asha Devi Bhatt, learned Vacation Judge, Simdega, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14212 ) 2 by which prayer for bail made on behalf of the Appellant, namely Rohit Kullu has been rejected in connection with Spl. (Children) Case No. 07 of 2023, arising out of Kolebira P.S. Case No.58 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No.400 of 2022(S-1), instituted for the offences under Sections 376 DA, 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.776 of 2023 2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant, namely Awkash Tete, by challenging the order dated 11.08.2023, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 329 of 2023, by Ms. Asha Devi Bhatt, learned Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Simdega, by which prayer for bail made on behalf of the Appellant, namely Awkash Tete has been rejected in connection with Spl. (Children) Case No. 05 of 2023, arising out of Kolebira P.S. Case No.59 of 2022 [To be read as Kolebira P.S.Case No. 58 of 2022 as per order dated 21.12.2023, passed in this criminal appeal by a Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Ratnaker Bhengra, as his Lordship then was) of this Court], corresponding to G.R. Case No.422 of 2022(S), instituted under Sections 376 DA, 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. 3. Both these criminal appeals arise from a common F.I.R. and hence, both the appeals are heard and disposed of together. 4. It is alleged by the informant that his daughter, aged about 15 years is a student of Class-IX of Kasturba Gandhi Residential School, Kolebira. Few days Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14212 ) 3 ago, his daughter became ill and he went to Sadar Hospital, Simdega for her treatment and where doctor found that his daughter was pregnant and carrying pregnancy of three months. On query the victim informed him that during summer vacation, on 05.06.2022, at about 10.00 A.M. her co-villager namely, Anjali Soreng and Savita Dungdung forcefully took her inside the room of Pramod Soreng and locked the door from outside. It is alleged that three boys including the Appellants, namely Rohit Kullu [i.e. Appellant of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.100 of 2024] and Awkash Tete [i.e. Appellant of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.776 of 2023] were already present inside the room. Thereafter, all of them, one by one, had committed rape upon her and threatened her not to disclose about the incident to anyone otherwise they will kill her. Accordingly, an F.I.R. was registered. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants, learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the Informant. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the impugned orders, i.e. Order dated 03.11.2023, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 501 of 2023 and order dated 11.08.2023, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 329 of 2023 by the learned Court below rejecting the bail of Appellants, namely Rohit Kullu and Awkash Tete respectively are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the Appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence. It is submitted that there is a delay of more than three months in lodging the F.I.R. and Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14212 ) 4 during the said period the victim girl did not inform her parents or any other person about the occurrence. It is submitted that save and except the confessional statement of the Appellants, there is no other material available against them. It is submitted that the allegation of committing rape upon the victim girl is not correct. It is submitted that one co-accused, namely Aman Dungdung have been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary) of this Court in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 125 of 2025 vide order dated 21.02.2025. It is submitted that the juvenile Appellants, namely Rohit Kullu and Awkash Tete are in custody since 28.09.2022 and as such he prays for bail on the ground of parity also as there is same and similar allegation against the present Appellants (i.e. Rohit Kullu and Awkash Tete) and the said Co-accused, namely Aman Dungdung. It is further submitted that now two witnesses have been left to be examined before the Court below till date. 7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the Appellants, namely Rohit Kullu and Awkash Tete and one other co-accused Aman Dungdung had forcibly committed rape upon the victim girl due to which she became pregnant. It is submitted that trial is on the verge of closure and hence, the prayer for bail of the Appellants may be rejected. 8. Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the submission of the learned A.P.P., has further submitted that the juvenile Appellants, namely Rohit Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14212 ) 5 Kullu and Awkash Tete, along with another co-accused, are named in the F.I.R. for committing rape upon the victim girl. It is submitted that the victim girl was about 15 years of age at the time of the occurrence and her date of birth is 06.11.2007 as per her School Certificate and the F.I.R. was lodged on 28.09.2022 and hence, the prayer for bail of the Appellants, namely Rohit Kullu and Awkash Tete may be rejected. 9. Perused the Lower Court Record and considered the submission of both sides. 10. It appears that the Informant had lodged the F.I.R. against the Appellants, namely Rohit Kullu and Awkash Tete and others as his daughter, i.e. the victim girl became pregnant due to the rape committed upon her by the juvenile Appellants, namely Rohit Kullu and Awkash Tete and another co-accused Aman Dungdung. 11. It appears that the victim girl, during her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has also supported the commission of rape upon her by the juvenile Appellants and one other boy as named in the F.I.R. 12. It appears that the victim girl was a minor, aged about 15 years on the date of occurrence. 13. It also appears that though the Co- ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary) of this Court had granted bail to other co- accused, namely Aman Dungdung in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 125 of 2025, vide order dated 21.02.2025, on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial, however, this Court respectfully differs with the view of the Co- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14212 ) 6 ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary) of this Court and this Court is not inclined to grant bail on the ground of parity as the victim girl is a minor girl and her date of birth is 06.11.2007 and she was below the age of 16 years on the date of occurrence. 14. It appears from the F.I.R. that the victim girl was carrying pregnancy of three months when she was examined in the Sadar Hospital, Simdega. 15. In view of the heinous Act of the Appellants, this Court is not inclined to extend the relief under benevolent provisions of the Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to the Appellants, namely Rohit Kullu and Awkash Tete. 16. During the course of submission it has been informed by the learned counsel for the Appellant as well as by the learned counsel for the Informant that Nine (09) witnesses, out of Eleven (11) charge-sheeted witnesses have been examined till date before the learned Court below. 17. Further, it appears from the report sent vide Letter No.147 of 2025 dated 27th February, 2025, by Shri Naranjan Singh, learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Simdega that Seven witnesses, out of 11 witnesses, have been examined by the time the report was sent and trial is likely to conclude in approximately Four months. 18. Accordingly, prayer for bail made on behalf of the Appellants, namely Rohit Kullu [i.e. Appellant of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.100 of 2024] and Awkash Tete [i.e. Appellant in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14212 ) 7 No.776 of 2023] is rejected, however, learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and also in the light of the comprehensive report dated 18.03.2025, sent vide Letter No. 179 of 2025, by the learned Court below pursuant to order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Navneet Kumar, as His Lordship then was) of this Court. 19. Thus, the order dated 03.11.2023, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 501 of 2023, by Ms. Asha Devi Bhatt, learned Vacation Judge, Simdega and the order dated 11.08.2023, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 329 of 2023, by Ms. Asha Devi Bhatt, learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Simdega are, hereby, affirmed and these Criminal Appeals, i.e. Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.100 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.776 of 2023 are, hereby, dismissed. 20. However, the learned Court below is directed to take all possible steps to examine the remaining witnesses forthwith and to conclude the trial by securing the presence of the witnesses with the assistance of the police administration. 21. Let copy of this order be sent to the Court below forthwith. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m.