Ritik Kumar Sah Alias Ritik Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.578 of 2024

Ritik Kumar Sah @ Ritik Kumar, aged about 19 years, son of Kamleshwar Sah @ Kameshwar Saw, represented through his father and natural Guardian namely Kameshwar Saw @ Kamleshwar Sah, aged about 41 years, son of Mahendra Sah, Resident of Gram Chorajor, P.O. – Nawadih, P.S. Saraiyahat, District-Dumka ..... Petitioner

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP

¶8

-----

¶9

3/23.08.2024 Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned APP appearing for the State.

¶10

This criminal revision application has been preferred against the Judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Dumka in Cr. Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2024, whereby an appeal preferred under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act against the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Dumka in connection with Saraiyahat P.S. Case No.33 of 2022, corresponding to E.N. No.55 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and changed u/s 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act added on 23.03.2023 was dismissed and thereby upheld the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dumka in connection with Saraiyahat P.S. Case No.33 of 2022, corresponding to E.N. No.55 of 2024, by which the prayer for bail of the present Juvenile was rejected under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

¶11

The allegations against the petitioner as set out in the FIR is that this petitioner along with other co-accused persons are said to have kidnapped the daughter of the informant who was 17 years old.

¶12

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this petitioner have had an occasion to file a criminal revision case before this court and by order dated 11.07.2023, the prayer for bail has been rejected with observation based on the report of the learned JJB stating therein that the enquiry would be concluded within two months before the Juvenile Justice Board.

¶13

It has further been submitted that although there was a report to that effect by the learned Juvenile Justice Board to conclude the enquiry within two

¶14

1 Cr. Revision No.578 of 2024

¶15

months, but it could not be concluded in view of the fact that this petitioner was above 16 years of age and after preliminary assessment with regard to mental and physical capacity, ability to understand the consequences of the offence to commit such offence in which petitioner allegedly committed the offence from the psychologist, in view of the fact, later on two sections namely section 376 of IPC and section 4 of POCSO Act were added, the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Dumka after assessing the report of psychological test under Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015 referred the trial of this petitioner to the Children Court under section 18(13) of the JJ Act, 2015 for the regular trial of this petitioner as an adult.

¶16

Further it has been pointed out that this petitioner is in jail since 28.6.2022 and it is admitted case of the prosecution that both the petitioner and the victim were friends and therefore the allegations of kidnapping and subsequent addition of the offences under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act are not substantiated.

¶17

Further, it has also been pointed out that the offence is said to have been taken place on 11.6.2022 and the FIR was instituted on 24.6.2022 after a lapse of 13 days and therefore the entire alleged allegations of heinous offence of kidnapping, abduction, rape and under POCSO Act are not supported and it is further submitted that this petitioner does not have any criminal history and he is rotting in jail for a long period of time and now the case of the trial of this petitioner has been transferred to the Children Court for conducting the trial as a regular trial like an Adult accused, although the petitioner is about 17 years of age and a child in conflict with law and he is ready to cooperate in the trial and therefore he deserves to be enlarged on bail, inasmuch as the preliminary assessment with regard to assess the capacity of petitioner as a child to commit and understand the consequences of alleged offence is also erroneous.

¶18

On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that two serious offences under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act have been added and further the victim has supported the case under Section 164 of the Cr.PC and the case of the petitioner has been transferred for regular trial as an adult before the Children Court after conducting preliminary assessment of his mental and physical capacity by assessing the psychological test under Section 15 of the J .J. Act and therefore he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Having heard the parties, peruse the record of this case.

¶20

2 Cr. Revision No.578 of 2024

¶21

It is admitted case of the prosecution that both the petitioner and the victim had been in friendly relationship for a long period of time as evident from the contents of the FIR itself. The petitioner is in jail since 28.6.2022. The charge-sheet in this case has been submitted and the case has been transferred to the Children Court, who is aged about 17 years after preliminary assessment of the petitioner with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit and understand the consequences of the alleged offence and as such further time will be consumed in the conclusion of trial which is pending before the Children Court now under u/s 19 of the JJ Act, 2015. Further it appears from the social investigation report that the economic condition of this petitioner is very poor and there is nothing on record to show that he is having any criminal history.

¶22

In view of the above discussion, it is found just and fair to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, petitioner above named is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge-1 cum P.O. Children Court, Dumka, in connection with Saraiyahat P.S. Case No.33 of 2022, corresponding to E.N. No.55 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and further subject to the condition that the petitioner will cooperate in the trail and will appear before the learned court below on each and every date as and when required by them, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned court below for the cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

¶24

Accordingly, this criminal revision application is allowed.

¶25

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶26

R.Kumar

¶27

3 Cr. Revision No.578 of 2024

Ritik Kumar Sah Alias Ritik Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritik Kumar Sah Alias Ritik Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Horil Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pachu Parahiya Alias Caitu Parhiya Alias Pachu Prahiya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vipul Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jivachh Kumar Alias Jivach Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Badal Turi Alias Chhotan Turi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dhananjay Ram Vs the State of Jharkhansd