IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.603 of 2024 …. Pawlus Tudu @ Paulus Tudu @ Polush Tudu, aged about 19 years, son of Paika Tudu, resident of Village-Rangamati, P.O.- Khurchutta, P.S.-Bengabad, District-Girdih ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Father/Guardian of Victim X ……Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P …… Order No.06/07.03.2025 This Criminal Revision Application No.603 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the juvenile petitioner challenging the judgment dated 07.05.2024 passed by Shri Gopal Pandey, learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Giridih in Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No.41 of 2024 by which the appeal has been dismissed by rejecting the bail of the petitioner and the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Justice Juvenile Board, Giridih, in MCA Case No.1277 of 2024 arising out of Bengabad P.S. Case No.264 of 2023 corresponding G.R. No.409 of 2024 instituted under Section 376DA of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act. 2. Heard Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, learned A.P.P. 3. As per the F.I.R, it is alleged that the grandfather of the victim girl has lodged the F.I.R stating therein that on 16.11.2023, while his granddaughter i.e. the victim girl X aged about 14 years had gone to the marriage in her friend and while she had gone to attend the call of nature, then the five persons namely Mithun 2 Soren, Hiralal Soren, Maniya Soren, Saheb Ram Soren, Pawlus Tudu @ Paulus Tudu @ Polush Tudu i.e. the petitioner caught hold her while she was alone and took her towards the field and tied her mouth by sari and forcibly established physical relation with her one by one and assaulted her by fists and slaps and also threatened her of dire consequence. Thereafter, the victim girl informed the matter to her grandfather and then they started Panchayati but it could not take place and hence the FIR was lodged. 4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Court below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that there is delaying in lodging the FIR as the occurrence took place on 16.11.2023 whereas the FIR was lodged on 19.11.2023, and there is no plausible explanation. It is submitted that so far as the other four accused persons are concerned, they belong to the same village but the juvenile petitioner belongs to other village i.e. Rangamati whereas the other four accused persons belong to Golgo, and hence there is no possibile for the petitioner to commit the offence. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false and concocted concocted. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2023 and hence the beneficial provisions of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 may be extended in his favour. It is submitted that the father is ready to take custody and take proper care of the juvenile petitioner and shall take further steps for his improvement and hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the petitioner and four other accused 3 are named in the FIR on the complaint made by the victim girl. It is also submitted that the victim girl has taken the name of the petitioner and also identified him. Learned A.P.P further submitted that the petitioner has left his study and roaming with local villagers of the village and so the grant of bail expose him to psychological danger and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected. 6. Perused the records of this case and considered both the sides. 7. It appears that occurrence had taken place on 16.11.2023 but the FIR was lodged on 19.11.2023 by the grandfather of the victim girl X. 8. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and others for committing the gang rape upon the victim girl X. 9. It also appears that the allegation of rape has also been supported by the Victim Girl X during her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and she has also identified the petitioner. 10. From the records and the Case Diary, it appears that the date of birth of the victim girl is 02.04.2008 and she was aged about 15 years 7 months on the date of occurrence. 11. It also appears that by the Child Welfare Committee before the learned Judicial Magistrate, the victim girl X has alleged about the commission of rape on her by the petitioner and other four persons named in the FIR. 12. This is a case of commission of gang rape of minor girl, therefore this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in favour of the juvenile petitioner. 4 13. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence the bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 14. Thus, the Criminal Revision Application No.603 of 2024 is dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court below is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-