1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 86 of 2024 ------ Ajay Murmu ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Victim X, through her guardian ....…Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, A.P.P ------ Order No: 13/ Dated: 17.03.2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the junvenile petitioner under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 by challenging the judgment dated 23.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2023 by Sri Rajendra Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur by which the appeal filed on behalf of the juvenile petitioner has been dismissed thereby, affirming the order dated 29.09.2023 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur by which the prayer for bail on behalf of the juvenile petition has been rejected in connection with Chakulia P.S. Case No. 34 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 363 and 376 (D) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as well as under Section 3 (2) (v) Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act). 2. As per the F.I.R, it is alleged that while the victim girl on 08.05.2023 was attending with her family friend Sujit Hansda the 2 function of her maternal uncle and they were talking to each other near one under construction house, suddenly one Maheshwar Mahto and his two friends namely Srujan Tudu @ Srijan Tudu and Ajay Murmu (i.e. the Juvenile petitioner) arrived there and started abusing her and they had also assaulted her friend Sujit Hansda. Thereafter, the said three accused persons namely Maheshwar Mahto and his two friends namely Srujan Tudu @ Srijan Tudu and Ajay Murmu forcibly got the victim seated in a motorcycle and took her near Gandropi River at a lonely place and all the said three accused persons had committed forcibly rape upon her. 3. Heard Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that no offence under Sections 323, 504, 363 and 376 (D) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (2) (v) Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes, Prevention of Atrocities Act is made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the juvenile petitioner is a school going children and the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate that there is no chance of either absconding of the juvenile or exposing him before society or joining him to any known or unknown association of criminal or to defeat the ends of justice. It is further submitted that the petitioner is juvenile and there is no adverse remarks regarding the antecedents of the child. It is submitted that from perusal of the Social Investigation Report, it is clear that the Juvenile Petitioner neither has criminal 3 antecedent nor he is in association with any known criminals and he is interested in his studies. It is submitted that the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act mandates the release on bail in the case of a juvenile in conflict with law. It is submitted that the mother of child is willing to give an undertaking that she shall ensure good behavior and well being of the child. It is further submitted that the juvenile is in home observation since 10.05.2023 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 juvenile petitioner has been named in the F.I.R for committing rape upon the victim girl. It is submitted that gang rape was committed upon the victim girl by this juvenile petitioner as well as his other two friends namely Maheshwar Mahto and Srujan Tudu @ Srijan Tudu and hence, the prayer for bail may be rejected. 6. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records received by the Juvenile Justice Board. 7. It appears that the charges have been framed against the juvenile petitioner under Sections 323, 504, 363 and 376 (D) of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Jamshedpur. 8. It appears that from the injury report and medical report of the victim girl that she is also pregnant but from earlier. 9. It also appears that all the accused persons including the juvenile petitioner has confessed their guilt for committing rape upon the victim girl. 10. It appears from the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur that the age of the 4 petitioner was assessed as 17 years 3 months and 03 days. Even, the child was sent to Civil Surgeon, Psychologist and Psychiatrist, Jamshedpur on 23.12.2024 for his physical and mental assessment as per mandate of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Preliminary Assessment Medical Board Report dated 30.12.2024 shows that the Committee was of the opinion that the child in conflict with law namely Ajay Murmu was aware of such offence in his social background and he had the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and he is able to understand, social, interpersonal and legal consequences of the offence. 11. It transpires that vide order dated 23.01.2025 the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur had sent the record with a direction to produce the child before the learned Children Court and the matter is pending before the learned Additional and Session Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children), Jamshedpur. 12. Considering the act of the petitioner and also considering gang rape upon the victim girl, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for release the juvenile petitioner on bail as he along with other co-accused persons had committed gang rape upon the victim girl. 13. Thus, the prayer for bail of the juvenile petitioner namely Ajay Murmu is hereby rejected. 14. Accordingly, the judgment dated 23.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2023 by Sri Rajendra Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and the order dated 29.09.2023 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur in connection with Chakulia P.S. Case No. 34 of 2023 are upheld. 5 15. Thus, this Criminal Revision No. 86 of 2024 is dismissed. 16. However, the learned Children Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible as the petitioner is in custody for a long period. 17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Avinash/