Utkarsh Kumar Alias Utkarsh Kumar Ojha Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2025:JHHC:11196

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Rev. No. 181 of 2025

¶4

------

¶5

Utkarsh Kumar @ Utkarsh Kumar Ojha, aged 15 ½ years, son of Santosh Kumar Ojha, resident of Village-Phulari, P.O. & P.S-Sandesh, District-Bhojpur, Bihar, represented through his natural guardian (mother) soni Devi, aged about 37 yrs, W/o Santosh Kumar Ojha, resident of Village-Phulari, P.O. & P.S-Sandesh, District-Bhojpur, Bihar

¶6

……. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶9

2.Victim X, D/o Harendra Prasad Sah, R/o New Market, C.T.O Road, Near Hanuman Mandir, P.O + P.S-Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi …… Opp. Parties

¶10

-------

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶12

------ For the petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate : Mr. Harsh Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bisambhar Shastri, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. S.B. Gupta, Advocate

¶13

¶14

Oral Order in Court 06/Dated:09^th April, 2025

¶15

The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the Order dated 16.01.2025 passed by Sri Asif Equbal, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum Special Judge (POCSO), Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 426 of 2024 by which the appeal has been dismissed by rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner thereby affirming the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi in connection with POCSO Case No. 103 of 2024, arising out of Dhurwa P.S. Case No.172 of 2024 instituted under Sections 376(2)(n), 387, 115, 120B of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

¶16

The FIR was lodged by the Victim girl being Dhurwa

¶17

¶18

2025:JHHC:11196

¶19

P.S. Case No.172/2024 registered under sections 376(2)(n), 387, 115, 120B of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act against Utkarsh Kumar, Shakti Kumar, Maya Devi, Soni Devi and unknown wherein it is alleged by victim that she used to go study in coaching at Dhurwa where this petitioner was also studying and during this period, they started talking with each other through mobile phones. It is further alleged that in April 2023 petitioner called her at his house and introduced her with his maternal grandmother Maya Devi and after that the petitioner continuously established physical relation forcefully with her with false assurance of marriage and he always met with her and talking about marriage. It is further alleged that she became ill then she informed to petitioner and the petitioner asked her to go in hospital for pregnancy test and as per advice of the petitioner she had gone to Sadar Hospital, Ranchi on 02.04.2024 where the Doctor approved her that she is pregnant of four months then she said about this to the petitioner then he assured to solemnize marriage with her.

¶20

It is further alleged that when informant had gone to the house of the petitioner then maternal grandmother, maternal uncle, mother and other family members were present and where the informant apprised them about her pregnancy then all the accused persons started abusing her and instigated the petitioner to commit rape upon the informant forcefully so that the pregnancy will be destroyed then the informant lodged the case in Police Station. Thereafter the accused persons had given false assurance of marriage and the petitioner solemnized marriage with the informant on 10.04.2024 in Temple. It is further alleged that petitioner as per advice of his family taken a house on rent and where both

¶21

¶22

2025:JHHC:11196

¶23

lived as the husband and wife and the other accused persons wanted to destroy her pregnancy after refusal by informant and they threatened to kill the informant and about this matter the informant said to the petitioner then he fled away in his village at Ara.

¶24

Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned APP for the State and Mr. S.B. Gupta, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court and the Order of Juvenile Justice Board are illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Special Child and he is under treatment of CIP (Central Institute of Psychiatry) and diagnosed as mentally ill by several doctors including Dr. K.K. Sinha. It is submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner is 06.01.2009 and the victim girl was more than 17 years on the date of occurrence. It is submitted that the Maternal Grandfather and Maternal Grandmother of the Juvenile petitioner had instituted FIR against Cyber criminals by submitting he written application on 05.03.2024 and 28.10.2024 for committing fraud of Rs.4,24,248/- between 20.05.2023 to 31.07.2023 vide Annexure-4 and the Grandmother has instituted F.I.R on 28.10.2024 regarding Cyber fraud of Rs.1,65,000/- for the period 16.05.2023 to 31.07.2023.

¶26

It is submitted that the Victim girl in collusion with the Cyber criminal had obtained the ATM Card from the petitioner which belongs to the Maternal Grandfather and Maternal Grandmother of the petitioner during the said period. It is submitted that the informant has got the case instituted in collusion with the Cyber criminal to save herself

¶27

¶28

2025:JHHC:11196

¶29

and those Cyber criminals. It is submitted that even the Victim girl was examined as P.W-5 before the Juvenile Justice Board and has admitted institution of said cases and she has also admitted that after the marriage she was given ATM Card by the Juvenile Petitioner-Utkarsh Kumar @ Utkarsh Kumar Ojha but she was not aware with regard of handing of said ATM Card but she had withdrawn Rs.18,000-19,000/ with the help of one person. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2024 and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶30

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner for committing rape upon her and establishing physical relationship with her and hence the prayer for bail of the juvenile-petitioner may be rejected. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is mentally fit and the document of medical report reveals that he was aged about 18 years at the date of occurrence, particularly the medical prescription issued by Dr. K.K. Sinha showing his age as 12 years in the year 2018. It is submitted that the petitioner has established physical relationship with the Victim girl on the false pretext of marriage and also performed marriage with her in the temple and has left her. It is further submitted that she has given birth to a child also and the child is also living with the Victim girl. It is submitted that till date police has not submitted charge sheet against the Victim girl in those cases instituted by the Maternal Grandfather and Grandmother against any person and hence the prayer for bail of the petitioner may be rejected. 8. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and

¶31

¶32

2025:JHHC:11196

¶33

from perusal of the Lower Court Record, it would appear that the Victim girl was aged about 17 years on the date of lodging of the F.I.R on 26.05.2024 and she was pregnant.

¶34

It appears from Annexure-3 series for the year 2018 and onwards, which are the Medical Prescriptions that the petitioner was under treatment of CIP (Central Institute of Psychiatry) for his mental ailment and for which he was also treated earlier by Dr. K.K. Sinha on 05.09.2018 in which his age had been shown as 12 years.

¶35

It further appears form Annexure-4 which is the written application dated 05.03.2024 submitted by one Ram Kumar Tiwari, Maternal Grandfather of Juvenile petitioner before the police that some Cyber criminals taking advantage of mental condition of his Nati had hacked his Mobile No.9835750290 and 9304790457 respectively and had withdrawn illegally Rs.4,24,248/- between 20.05.2023 to 31.07.2023 bearing Login I.D No.RAO2902402291721 and for which he had instituted complaint with Cyber Crime Branch, Ranchi.

¶36

It also appears form Annexure-5 which is written application dated 28.10.2024 submitted by Maya Devi i.e. Maternal Grandmother of the petitioner that taking mental condition of Juvenile petitioner, her nephew-Jyoti Prakash has also obtained the mobile of her husband Ram Kumar Tiwari and he is also in collusion with one Piyush Kumar, Subham Pandey and the Victim girl (name not disclosed) and they have also withdrawn huge sum and for which Prabir Singh, who is father of Piyush had given the Undertaking to return Rs.1,65,000/- but the same was not done.

¶37

From perusal of the certified copy of the deposition of Victim examined as P.W-2 before the Juvenile Justice

¶38

¶39

2025:JHHC:11196

¶40

Board, it would appear from para-51 to 53 of her crossexamination that she had also withdrawn Rs.18,000-19000/after marrying with the petitioner. The certified copy of the FIR has been produced by learned counsel for the Juvenile petitioner during the argument before this Court, let it be kept on record.

¶41

From perusal of the FIR, it would appear that the petitioner is said to have established physical relationship with the Victim girl on false promise of marriage and the relationship was consensual. 14. It appears from the statement of Victim girl recorded under section 183 of B.N.S.S that she has not disclosed about the particular temple where she had married with the petitioner.

¶42

It also appears from Annexure-3 series at page 30 to 35 that the petitioner was under treatment of C.I.P (Central Institute of Psychiatry) since 19.11.2018 till date. 16. It appears that though the case is instituted by his relatives are still under investigation but considering that till date charge sheet has not been submitted against the accused persons of the written applications submitted by the Maternal Grandfather and Maternal Grandmother of the petitioner, however, the petitioner has raised reasonable suspicion for his implication in this case.

¶43

Accordingly, cconsidering the custody of the petitioner and also on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the juvenile petitioner-Utkarsh Kumar @ Utkarsh Kumar Ojha is directed to be released on bail in care and supervision of his Natural Guardian and in custody of his Mother namely, Soni Devi on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the

¶44

¶45

2025:JHHC:11196

¶46

like amount each to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi in connection with POCSO Case No.103 of 2024, arising out of Dhurwa P.S. Case No.172 of 2024, and the mother of the juvenile- petitioner will submit her mobile number before the learned Court below, which she will always keep active and will not change it, during the pendency of this case, without prior permission of the Court and shall produce the juvenile-petitioner as and when required.

¶47

Therefore, in view of the above, the order dated order dated 16.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 426 of 2024 and the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi in connection with POCSO Case No. 103 of 2024, arising out of Dhurwa P.S. Case No.172 of 2024 are set aside. 19. Thus, the Criminal Revision No. 181 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

¶48

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶49

Saket/

¶50

Utkarsh Kumar Alias Utkarsh Kumar Ojha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Utkarsh Kumar Alias Utkarsh Kumar Ojha 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

Amit Anand Alias Amit Anand Barnwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suchitra Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madan Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitesh Kumar Alias Tuntun Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akash Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Zafar Ansari Alias Jafar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand