Jharkhand High Court
Sarvan Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 February, 2015
Author: Amitav K. Gupta
Bench: Amitav K. Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1043 of 2014
Sarvan Kumar, Minor S/o Abhimanyu Singh
R/o village Marchoi, P.O. Marchoi, P.S. Satgawan
Distt. Koderma .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Singh For the State : Mr. Awanikant Prasad, APP
----------
04/Dated: 18/02/2015 The instant Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the order dated 12.09.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2014, whereby the bail of the petitioner has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the F.I.R. the prosecutrix has not whispered about the commission of rape by the petitioner rather she has stated that the petitioner and another co-accused had torn her clothes and tied her legs. That in re-statement she has alleged commission of rape by this petitioner and another co-accused. That in fact the petitioner has been made an accused on account of rivalry between two groups in the villagers. That the medical report shows that no injury was found on persons of the prosecutrix neither any sign of rape was found. That the alleged place of occurrence is Arhar field and if there was a forcibly commission of rape make likelihood injuries would have been visible. It is urged that the Social Investigation Report no adverse remark has been made and the petitioner is interested in pursuing his study and his exams are scheduled to be held on 20 th of this month. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short J.J Act) which mandates the release on bail of a juvenile in conflict with law and refusal of bail can only be where such release is likely to bring him in association of known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice; that the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that after 2 release, he might come in association with known criminals; that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent; that the petitioner is a student and his father is willing to give an undertaking for proper care and supervision of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the F.I.R. it has not been alleged about the rape but in her re-statement the prosecutrix has stated that the rape was committed by the petitioner and another co-accused and in para-44 of the case diary, the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been reproduced wherein she has categorically stated that this petitioner along with co-accused has committed rape upon her; that her sister-in-law (Nanad) namely, Maruti Kumari in para-5 of the case diary has stated that she had seen the prosecutrix in a naked condition and prosecutrix has disclosed about the commission of rape by the petitioner and another co-accused; that the other independent witnesses in para nos. 21, 23, 24, 30, 84, 86 have stated that the prosecutrix had disclosed to them regarding the commission of rape by this petitioner and another co-accused; that the co-accused Taan Kumar has criminal antecedent.
4. Heard. On perusal of the material on record and Social Investigation Report it transpires that the Probation Officer has noted that there is lack of proper supervision of parents and bad company of the petitioner. Considering the gravity of the offence it would not be proper in the interest of justice to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby, rejected. The Board should conclude the enquiry within six months from the date of this order, in failure to conclude the enquiry the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the court below.
5. With the said observation and direction, this revision application is hereby dismissed.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Fahim/