Dismissed¶¶29

Akash Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Apr 2025Cr.Rev./164/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

juvenile bail; Section 12 Juvenile Justice Act; provisional bail refused; POCSO Sections 4 and 6; IPC Sections 376, 376(3), 376(n); Section 164 Cr.P.C.; victim below 16 years; Rajnagar P.S. Case No.41 of 2024; MCRA No.992 of 2024; Criminal (Bail) Appeal No.28 of 2024; Juvenile Justice Board Seraikella; Children Court Seraikella; Cr. Rev. No.164 of 2025; 2025:JHHC:11108; Sanjay Prasad, J.; High Court of Jharkhand; revision dismissed; speedy trial direction

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the bail prayer was rejected and the orders of the courts below were upheld, with only a direction to conclude the enquiry/trial at the earliest. ¶¶29

Akash Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the bail prayer was rejected and the orders of the courts below were upheld, with only a direction to conclude the enquiry/trial at the earliest.

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the juvenile petitioner should be released on (provisional) bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act despite the allegations of rape of a girl below sixteen years of age. +1 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

On perusal of the record, the victim girl was below 16 years of age, her date of birth being 16.02.2008, and the occurrence first took place in November 2023.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim girl supported the allegation of commission of rape upon her by the juvenile petitioner forcibly.

¶¶26

Key takeaways

Considering that the victim girl was juvenile (minor) on the date of occurrence, the Court declined to exercise its discretion under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for releasing the petitioner on provisional bail.ratio¶¶28
The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected and Criminal Revision Application No.164 of 2025 was dismissed.ratio¶¶29
The order dated 18.10.2024 passed in Criminal (Bail) Appeal No.28 of 2024 and the order dated 18.10.2024 passed in MCRA No.992 of 2024 (in connection with Rajnagar P.S. Case No.41 of 2024) were upheld.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision by a juvenile in conflict with law (now aged about 18 years) seeking bail in Rajnagar P.S. Case No.41 of 2024, instituted under Sections 376, 376(3), 376(n) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act. Held: (i) the victim girl was below 16 years of age (DOB 16.02.2008) and the occurrence first occurred in November 2023; (ii) in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement the victim supported the allegation of forcible rape by the petitioner; (iii) considering the victim was a juvenile/minor on the date of occurrence, this Court was not inclined to exercise discretion under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act to release the petitioner on provisional bail. The bail prayer was rejected and the Criminal Revision dismissed; the order dated 18.10.2024 in MCRA No.992 of 2024 (Juvenile Justice Board, Seraikella) and the order dated 18.10.2024 in Criminal (Bail) Appeal No.28 of 2024 (Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge, Children Court, Seraikella) were upheld. The learned court below was directed to conclude the enquiry/trial at the earliest.

¶1

2025: JHHC:11108

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.164 of 2025

¶3

….

¶4

Akash Mahato, aged about 18 years, s/o Late Abhimanyu Mahato r/o village Chapra, P.O. and P.S. Rajnagar and District SeraikellaKharsawan

¶5

……Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Victim X through her father ……Opp. Parties

¶9

-----

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶11

-----

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate

¶13

Order No.05/09.04.2025

¶14

This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the order dated 18.10.2024 passed in Criminal (Bail) Appeal No.28 of 2024 by Sri Choudhary Ahsan Moiz, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge, Children Court, Seraikela by which the appeal has been dismissed by rejecting the bail of the petitioner and thereby affirming the order dated 18.10.2024, passed in MCRA No.992 of 2024 by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Seraikella in connection with Rajnagar P.S. Case No.41 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 376, 376(3), 376(n) of IPC and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.

¶15

As per the FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner had established physical relationship with the victim at his house in the month of November 2023 and thereafter he established physical relationship with the victim several times due to which the daughter of the informant became pregnant. Thereafter, the

¶16

¶17

2025: JHHC:11108

¶18

Informant conveyed Panchayati on 08.06.2024 but the juvenile petitioner refused to accept his daughter and hence the FIR was lodged.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has committed no offence. It is submitted that there is delay of 7 months in lodging the FIR and as such the allegation of the FIR cannot be relied upon. It is submitted that from the FIR it is clear that the juvenile petitioner has not put any force and has not induced her rather the victim girl had established the physical relationship with the petitioner as per her own consents. It is submitted that the juvenile petitioner is a bright student and has secured 74 percent marks and has not any criminal antecedent. It is submitted that the DNA report of the child has not brought on record by the prosecution. It is submitted that in view of the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act the petitioner should be granted bail as gravity of offence has not to be seen in the case of Juvenile. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 12.07.2024 and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the juvenile petitioner has established physical relationship with the victim girl and her date of birth is 16.02.2008 and the occurrence has taken place on November 2023 and as such the girl was below 16 year of age and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected.

¶21

Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2, after adopting the submissions of learned APP, has further submitted that juvenilepetitioner had induced the victim girl and established physical

¶22

¶23

2025: JHHC:11108

¶24

relationship with her on the pretext of marriage but he refused to marry her and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of records of this case, it appears that that the victim girl was below 16 years of age and her date of birth is said to have 16.02.2008 and the occurrence had taken in November 2023 for the first time.

¶26

It appears from the statement of the victim girl during under Section 164 of Cr.P.C that she has supported the allegation of commission of rape upon her by the juvenile petitioner forcibly.

¶27

It appears from the para 41 of the Case Diary that Panchayati had also been taken place which could not succeed. It appears from the para 39 of the Case Diary that victim girl was having pregnancy of 35 weeks. 10. It appears that the petitioner has established physical relationship with the victim girl who is a minor below 16 years of age.

¶28

Considering the fact that the victim girl is juvenile on the date of occurrence, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for releasing the petitioner on provisional bail.

¶29

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected and this Criminal Revision Application No.164 of 2025 is hereby dismissed.

¶30

Thus, the order dated 18.10.2024 passed in Criminal (Bail) Appeal No.28 of 2024 by Sri Choudhary Ahsan Moiz, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge, Children Court, Seraikella and the order dated 18.10.2024, passed in MCRA No.992 of 2024 by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

¶31

¶32

2025: JHHC:11108

¶33

Board, Seraikella in connection with Rajnagar P.S. Case No.41 of 2024 is upheld.

¶34