2026:JHHC:5081 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 999 of 2025 …… Vivek Ram @ Vivek Kumar Ram aged about 25 years, son of Late Santosh Ram, resident of Village- Damodar, PO- Damodar, PS- Chandwa, District- Latehar (Jharkhand) ….. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Guardian of Victim-X ..… Respondent ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A P. P. For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Tarun Kumar Mahto, Advocate …… ORAL ORDER IN COURT 06/19.02.2026 Pursuant to the order dated 16.02.2026 passed by this Court, vide Letter No. 50 dated 17.02.2026, Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Latehar has submitted explanation and has tendered apology and has stated that he has joined the Court on 01.05.2024 and wrong order sheets was being continued from 29.03.2023. However, inconvenience caused to the Court is deeply regretted and he has also sought unconditional apology for the same and has given undertaking that he will not commit such type of mistake in future again. 2. Under the circumstances, explanation furnished by Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Latehar is accepted for the present, but he is directed to remain careful in future. 3. It also appears that Irshad Ahmed, Office Clerk/Bench Clerk and Santosh Kumar Pandit, Office Clerk/Bench Clerk of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, 2026:JHHC:5081 2 Children Court, Latehar have also furnished their explanations through learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Latehar. 4. Although this Court has accepted the explanation furnished by Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Latehar, but this Court is not satisfactory with the explanation furnished by Irshad Ahmed, Office Clerk/Bench Clerk and Santosh Kumar Pandit, Office Clerk/Bench Clerk of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Latehar. Accordingly, this Court directs learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Latehar to issue disciplinary proceeding against Irshad Ahmed, Office Clerk/Bench Clerk and Santosh Kumar Pandit, Office Clerk/Bench Clerk and to take appropriate decision as the appellant has remained in custody since 29.03.2023 till date without facing trial on the part of the mistake of the concerned office staffs. 5. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 101 (5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 challenging the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by learned Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in M. C. A. No. 499 of 2025 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar has rejected the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Chandwa P. S. Case No. 39 of 2018 corresponding to Children Case No. 01 of 2022 instituted for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 342, 376, 315, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. 2026:JHHC:5081 3 It is submitted that the allegations against the appellant is false and incorrect. It is submitted that there is delay of one year in lodging the FIR as the occurrence is of 04.02.2017, however, the FIR was lodged on 05.03.2018. It is further submitted that the Informant is residing with the mother and sisters of the appellant in the house of the appellant and for which she has filed an application along with affidavit before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar on 06.03.2024 and which has been enclosed as Annexure-4 of this Criminal Appeal. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 06.03.2018 i.e. for around seven (7) years and ten (10) months and as such, he may be enlarged on bail. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the appellant has committed heinous crime and hence the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 9. However, learned counsel for the Informant has submitted that the victim girl is living in the house of the appellant along with his mother and sisters. It is submitted that the victim girl has no grievance against the appellant. 10. The Informant Victim Girl is also present in Court and on being asked by learned APP, she has been informed that she is residing in the house of the appellant along with the mother of the appellant and other family members and she has no objection, if the appellant is granted bail. 11. From perusal of the records, it appears that the prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Subhash Chand as then His Lordship was) vide order dated 25.07.2023 in Criminal Revision No. 1293 of 2022. 2026:JHHC:5081 4 12. It appears that the appellant has suffered a lot due to mistake on the part of the learned Trial Court and also due to the mistake on the part of Bench Clerk/Office Clerk of the learned Trial Court as it appears that the appellant could not be produced before the learned Trial Court by mistake on the part of the learned Trial Court from 02.01.2023 to 07.02.2026. 13. In view of the above and considering the facts and the circumstances of the case and also the fact that the appellant is in custody in custody since 06.03.2018 i.e. for around seven (7) years and ten (10) months, the appellant -Vivek Ram @ Vivek Kumar Ram is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in connection with Chandwa P. S. Case No. 39 of 2018 corresponding to Children Case No. 01 of 2022. 14. Therefore, in view of the above, the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in M. C. A. No. 499 of 2025 in connection with Chandwa P. S. Case No. 39 of 2018 corresponding to Children Case No. 01 of 2022 is set aside. 15. Thus, the Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 999 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. 16. Let the copy of this order be sent to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Latehar and learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Latehar by FAX at once for the needful. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated 19.02.2026 Kamlesh/