Pandav Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

2025:JHHC:16719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1075 of 2024

….

Pandav Kumar Das aged about 15 years, son of Manik Das, resident of Village- Jamua, PO & PS- Chitra, District- Deoghar, represented through his natural guardian and mother of the petitioner namely Asha Devi wife of Manik Das, resident House No. 34, Village- Jamua, PO & PS- Chitra, District- Deoghar

¶5

…… Petitioner

¶6

Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Party

¶7

-----

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶9

-----

¶10

For the petitioner : Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A. P. P. For the Informant : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, A. P. P.

¶11

…. .

¶12

ORAL ORDER IN COURT

¶13

05/23.04.2025 The present Criminal Revision No. 1075 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the juvenile-petitioner under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 challenging the judgment dated 06.09.2024 passed by Sri Rajeev Ranjan, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Deoghar in Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No. 42 of 2024 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Deoghar has dismissed the appeal and rejected the prayer for bail of the juvenile- petitioner and affirmed the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar in connection with Chitra P. S. Case No. 46 of 2024 corresponding to Inquiry No. 189 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 366 (A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

It has been alleged by the Informant in the FIR that his minor sister has been abducted by the juvenile-petitioner, Pandav

¶15

- 1-

¶16

2025:JHHC:16719

¶17

Kumar Das aged about 15 years on 02.06.2024 in the night at around 11.00 PM and his sister is aged around 16 years 4 months. It is also alleged that his sister has been taken by the juvenilepetitioner, Pandav Kumar Das by enticing and abducting her for the purpose of marriage.

¶18

During search, it is also learnt that family members of the petitioner have also helped in abduction of his minor sister.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the juvenilepetitioner that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the law. It is submitted that the petitioner is a juvenile and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the petitioner is appearing candidate of Class-X of High School, Chatra for which Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi issued a Admit Card in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner appearing in this exam and has passed successfully in 2^nd Division. It is submitted that the victim girl, during her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C., has admitted that they are boy friend and girl friend and she admitted that she had gone with the juvenile-petitioner on her own will. It is submitted that one Neha Kumari, who was the friend of the victim girl had also stated during her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. that the victim girl had gone with the juvenile-petitioner on 02.06.2024 as her marriage was fixed and even the said Neha Kumari along with Rahul Kumar had accompanied them and they had gone to Nepal. It is submitted that one similarly situated co-accused namely Rahul Kumar Das has been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,

¶20

- 2-

¶21

2025:JHHC:16719

¶22

Madhupur (Deoghar) in B. P. No. 96 of 2024 vide order dated 09.07.2024. It is submitted that the victim girl is a student of ClassXI. It is submitted that during examination of the victim girl, signs of sexual intercourse not found, although Doctor has opined that there may be sexual intercourse because hymen was found old rapture. It is submitted that there is delay of three (3) days in lodging in FIR and the juvenile-petitioner has been named on mere suspicion. However, the police has falsely submitted charge sheet against the juvenile- petitioner for the offences under Sections 366/376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner is working as a labour for his livelihood at Bangalore. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner undertakes to take proper care and control upon his son in future, if the petitioner is released on bail. It is submitted that the juvenile-petitioner is in custody since 04.07.2024 and as such, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation the juvenile-petitioner for abducting the minor girl and hence the prayer for bail of the juvenile- petitioner may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation the juvenilepetitioner for abducting the minor girl. It is submitted that the juvenile- petitioner has taken the victim girl to Nepal where he forcibly established sexual intercourse with her and also put vermillion on her head. It is submitted that the victim girl during her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C., has fully supported that the juvenile- petitioner has abducted her with his three (3) associates in a Scorpio Car. It is submitted that several

¶23

- 3-

¶24

2025:JHHC:16719

¶25

witnesses namely Radhika Devi (Grand-mother) and Sushma Devi (mother), whose statements are recorded at para-14 and 15 of the case diary, have fully supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that in view of the above, the prayer for bail of the juvenilepetitioner may be rejected.

¶26

Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides.

¶27

It appears from the FIR that the juvenile- petitioner, Pandav Kumar Das is alleged to have enticed and abducted the minor sister of the Informant for the purpose of marriage. From perusal of the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. on 04.07.2024, it would appear that juvenilepetitioner has informed her that her father has fallen outside after taking wine on 02.06.2024 and when she came outside the house to watch her father, then someone came from behind sniffed her due to which she became unconscious. On 04.06.2024, she became conscious, then she learnt that she is in Nepal. She also alleged and stated that the petitioner has forcibly established relationship with her. It appears that the victim girl is minor girl and below the age of 18 years.

¶28

It further appears that there is nothing on record that marriage of the victim girl was fixed and hence she fled away to Nepal due to fear of family members as she was not willing to perform marriage.

¶29

Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to enlarge to give benefit of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and hence, the prayer for bail of the juvenilepetitioner is, hereby, rejected.

¶30

Considering the fact that the victim girl was taken to Nepal

¶31

- 4-

¶32

2025:JHHC:16719

¶33

by this juvenile-petitioner and has established physical relationship with her forcibly, the judgment dated 06.09.2024 passed by Sri Rajeev Ranjan, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Deoghar in Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No. 42 of 2024 and the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar in connection with Chitra P. S. Case No. 46 of 2024 corresponding to Inquiry No. 189 of 2024 are upheld.

¶34

Thus, the Criminal Revision No. 1075 of 2024 is dismissed.

¶35

Kamlesh/

¶36

- 5-

Pandav Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandav Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shekhar Kumar Modi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranbir Lohra Alias Ranvir Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Parmanand Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gorakh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hare Ram Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand