2025:JHHC:20611 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.290 of 2025 …. Suman Yadav @ Suman Kumar Yadav, aged about 16 years, Son of Late Najir Yadav, resident of village-Tulsikitta, P.O.+P.S.- Pathargama, District-Godda, Represented through natural guardian cousin namely Monu Kumar, Son of Vijay Kumar Yadav, Resident of Village + Post-Malini, P.S.-Godda (M), District- Godda ……Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Dinesh Yadav, S/O Late Upendra Yadav, R/O Village- Tulsikitta, P.O.+P.S-Pathargam, Distrct-Godda ……Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate …… Order No.05/17.07.2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed behalf of the juvenile petitioner by challenging the judgment dated 24.01.2025 passed by Sri Kumar Pawa, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda passed in Criminal Appeal No.01/2025 by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and thereby affirming order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Godda in connection with Pathagama P.S. Case No.135 of 2024 arising out of Enquiry No.173/2024 in M.C.A. No.3472 of 2024 by which the petitioner has been instituted for the offences under Sections 65(1), 96, 64(2)(m) of the BNSS, 2023 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act which is pending before the Court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Godda. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and 2025:JHHC:20611 2 learned Counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the juvenile petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that there was love affair between the juvenile petitioner and the victim girl one year prior to the occurrence. It is submitted that the victim girl has not taken the name of the juvenile petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS Act. It is further submitted that the juvenile petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. It is submitted that the juvenile petitioner is meritorious student and has passed the Annual Secondary Examination 2024 and thereafter he took admission in Class XIth In N.G. Intermediate Collage, Pathargama. It is submitted that the Cousin of the juvenile petitioner is ready to take custody of the juvenile petitioner It is further submitted that the juvenile-petitioner is in remand home since 03.08.2024 and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of bail. 5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has also opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is the master mind of this crime by provoking his daughter and trapped her in false love affairs. It is submitted that the petitioner had taken the victim girl in his sister’s home and the appellant and the victim girl is a minor girl. Hence the prayer of bail of the petitioner may be rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from 2025:JHHC:20611 3 perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the date of birth of the victim (minor) girl is 01.02.2010. 7. It appears that from the FIR that this juvenile petitioner is alleged to have enticed the daughter of the Informant i.e. on 27.07.2024 while she had gone to attend her school. 8. It further appears that the petitioner has moved this case through his cousin and release of this juvenile petitioner may not be appropriate at this stage. 9. It appears from the statement of victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was taken by the appellant to the house of his sister where she remained for few days and thereafter, she had returned. 10. It also appears that the victim girl was minor i.e. below 15 years on the date of occurrence. 11. Accordingly, this Corut is not inclined to grant the bail of the petitioner. Hence the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage. 12. Thus, the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by Sri Kumar Pawa, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda passed in Criminal Appeal No.01/2025 and the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Godda in connection with Pathagama P.S. Case No.135 of 2024 arising out of Enquiry No.173/2024 in M.C.A. No.3472 of 2024 are upheld (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-