( 2026:JHHC:21355 ) 1 IN THE HIGHCOURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 643 of 2026 Mukesh Sinku, aged about 17 years Son of Sri Mohan Singh Sinku, permanent Resident of Village-Angardiha, P.O. & P.S. Kumardungi, District- West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, represented through his natural guardian cum-father namely Mohan Singh Sinku, Son of Rahutu Sinku, Resident of Village-Angardiha Pashchimi Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S. Kumardungi, District-West Singhbhum at Chaibasa ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P. --- Order No.03 Dated 20th July, 2026 Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. This application is directed against the order dated 18.05.2026 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 28 of 2026 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge –I-Cum-Special Judge, Children’s Court West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, whereby and whereunder the order dated 07.04.2026 passed in Kumardungi P.S. Case No. 24 of 2025 by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board at Chaibasa, rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been affirmed. It has been alleged that the victim along with her friend had left for her aunt’s house and even after two days when they did not return, a search was conducted and both were traced out. The daughter of the informant who is also a victim had stated about the manner in which she was subjected to rape by the accused persons. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that several co-accused persons have been granted bail by the learned Trial Court. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is in observation home since 11.08.2025 and the Social ( 2026:JHHC:21355 ) 2 Investigation Report has not yet been received. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. It appears that though some of the co-accused persons have been granted bail by the learned Trial Court, but so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, he seems to have been named by the victim in her evidence as P.W.1 and she has also identified the petitioner as the person who had subjected her to rape. Regard being had to the above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and consequently this Criminal Revision stands dismissed at this stage. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Dated:20.07.2026 Rashmi/- Uploaded +