Dismissed¶¶31

Sohit Bauri v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Apr 2025Cr.Rev./171/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cr. Rev. No. 171 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 22nd April, 2025 by Sanjay Prasad, J.; juvenile bail; Section 96 B.N.S Act; Chitra P.S Case No.76 of 2024; Enquiry No.216 of 2024; Juvenile Justice Board Deoghar; Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No. 58 of 2024; section 164 Cr.P.C statement; POCSO Act; minor victim aged 15-16 years; pregnancy; bail rejected; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Although the Victim girl was well acquainted with the petitioner, she is a minor girl and was pregnant; this was the stated basis for refusing bail. ¶¶28

Sohit Bauri Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Juvenile petitioner (aged about 17 years) is entitled to be enlarged on bail in connection with Chitra P.S Case No.76 of 2024 (offence under Section 96 of the B.N.S Act), notwithstanding rejection of his bail prayer by the Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar and dismissal of his appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Children Court, Deoghar.

¶¶14

Court's answer

Although the Victim girl was well acquainted with the petitioner, she is a minor girl and was pregnant; this was the stated basis for refusing bail.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

This Court is not inclined to enlarge the Juvenile petitioner on bail; accordingly, the prayer for bail of the Juvenile petitioner is rejected.

¶¶29

Key takeaways

The judgment dated 18.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Children Court, Deoghar in Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No. 58 of 2024 and the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar are upheld.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Juvenile bail refusal upheld. A juvenile aged about 17 years, arraigned in Chitra P.S Case No.76 of 2024 (Enquiry No.216 of 2024) for an offence under Section 96 of the B.N.S Act on the allegation that he enticed/abducted a minor girl on the pretext of marriage, challenged the rejection of his bail prayer by the Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar (order dated 06.12.2024) and the dismissal of his appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Children Court, Deoghar (judgment dated 18.01.2025 in Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No. 58 of 2024). The victim's date of birth was recorded as 01.01.2009 (aged about 15 to 16 years when the F.I.R was lodged on 05.10.2024) and she was found pregnant by about five months; her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C showed she was well acquainted with the petitioner. Holding that the victim's minority and pregnancy outweighed the acquaintance, the High Court (Sanjay Prasad, J.) declined to enlarge the juvenile on bail, upheld both orders below, and dismissed Cr. Rev. No. 171 of 2025.

¶1

2025:JHHC:11929

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 171 of 2025

¶3

------

¶4

Sohit Bauri, Aged about 17 years, Son of Raju Bauri @ Raja Bauri, represented through his father and natural guardian namely Raju Bauri, Aged about 38 years, Resident of village Asanboni, Baratanr, P.O. Asanbani & P.S-Chitra, District-Deoghar

¶5

…… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Parties

¶8

-------

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶10

-----

¶11

For the petitioner : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P

¶12

¶13

03/Dated:22^nd April, 2025

¶14

This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the judgment dated 18.01.2025 passed by Sri Rajeev Ranjan, learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Children Court, Deoghar in Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No. 58 of 2024 by which appeal has been dismissed and the prayer for bail of the Juvenile petitioner has been rejected thereby affirming the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by Sri B. C. Chatterjee, learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar in connection with Chitra P.S Case No.76 of 2024 (Enquiry No.216 of 2024) for the offence under Section 96 of the B.N.S Act.

¶15

As per F.I.R, it is alleged that the petitioner has enticed the minor girl aged about 18 years for the purpose of marriage by abducting her.

¶16

Heard Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P for the State.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

¶18

¶19

2025:JHHC:11929

¶20

that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and the learned Juvenile Justice Board are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the Juvenile-petitioner has committed no offence. It is submitted that there was love affairs between the petitioner and the Victim minor girl. It is submitted that even the FIR disclosed that the Victim girl was pregnant of five months and they had married. It is submitted that even the Victim girl during her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C has stated that she had gone with own will with the juvenile petitioner. It is submitted that the medical evidence reveals that the Victim girl is aged around 15 to 17 years and hence there is contradiction in prosecution case. It is submitted that the Juvenile petitioner is in custody since 06.11.2024 and hence the Juvenile petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the Victim girl is minor aged around 15 years and was pregnant when the FIR was lodged. It is submitted that the date of birth of the Victim girl is 01.01.2009 and thus she was aged between 15 to16 years when the F.I.R was lodged on 05.10.2024. It is submitted that in the offence under the provisions of POCSO Act, the consent of minor is not relevant factor and hence the prayer for bail of the juvenile-petitioner may be rejected.

¶22

Learned counsel for the informant-O.P. No.2 and after adopting the submission of the learned APP opposed the prayer for bail and further submitted that informant is contesting the case against the petitioner.

¶23

¶24

2025:JHHC:11929

¶25

Perused the records of this case, the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C and the records of this case.

¶26

It appears from the FIR that the petitioner is alleged to have enticed the Victim girl on the pretext of marriage who was found pregnant of about five months.

¶27

It appears that the date of birth of the Victim girl is 01.01.2009 i.e. she was aged about 15 to 16 years.

¶28

From perusal of the statement of the Victim girl recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, it would also appear that though she was well acquainted with the petitioner but the fact remains that she is a minor girl and even she was pregnant.

¶29

Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the Juvenile petitioner on bail. 12. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the Juvenile petitioner is rejected.

¶30

Under the circumstances, the judgment dated 18.01.2025 passed by Sri Rajeev Ranjan, learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Children Court, Deoghar in Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No. 58 of 2024 and the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by Sri B. C. Chatterjee, learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar, in connection with Chitra P.S Case No.76 of 2024 (Enquiry No.216 of 2024) are upheld.

¶31

Thus, Cr. Rev. No.171 of 2025 is hereby dismissed.

¶32

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶33

Saket/

¶34

Sohit Bauri v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohit Bauri 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

Basuki Yadav Alias Basudeo Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Ajimuddin Alias Md.Azim Alias Lalu @ Md,Ajimuddin Azim Vs the State of Jharkhand

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