Bail for juveniles in serious offenses requires exceptional circumstances; mere similarity to other cases is insufficient for discharge.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Prasad, J.

This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the juvenile petitioner challenging the judgment dated 04.10.2023, passed by Shri D.C. Awasthi, the learned Special Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2023, by which the learned Spl. Judge has dismissed the appeal by rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner and the Appellate Court had affirmed the Order dated 05.09.2023, passed by the Principal Magistrate and Members of the Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 1084 of 2023, by which prayer of bail of the petitioner has been rejected in connection with Ghaghra P.S.Case No. 16 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Sections 376-DA/34 of I.P.C. and Sections4/6 of POCSO Act.

2. As per F.I.R., while the Informant-Victim Girl along with her friend ‘Y’ and one Sameer Oraon were returning after attending a party, then on the way, Five persons, including this juvenile petitioner, intercepted them, however, the friends of the Informant fled away, whereas the Informant-Victim Girl was caught by the Five persons namely Naveen Oraon (i.e the petitioner), Bindeshwar Oraon, Laxhmi Oraon, Indradeo Oraon and Devender Oraon.

3. Learned counsel for the juvenile petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is juvenile and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that two co-accused persons, Devendra Oraon and Indradeo Oraon have been enlarged on bail in Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2024 by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court (Justice Ratnaker Bhengra, as then His Lordship was) on 26.09.2024 and the case of the petitioner is similarly situated with them. It is submitted that the petitioner was in custody since 26.02.2023 and the brother of the petitioner is ready to give undertaking on behalf of the juvenile petitioner to keep him in proper care and supervision. It is submitted that no sign of rape was found on the Victim Girl and hence the juvenile petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner for committing rape upon the Informant-Victim Girl and as such the prayer for bail may be rejected.

5. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the record of this case and also the Web copy of the order dated 26.09.2024, passed in Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Ratnaker Bhengra, as then His Lordship was) of this Court and also the Social Investigation Report of the petitioner.

6. It appears from the F.I.R. that there is direct allegation against the petitioner for committing gang rape upon the victim girl along with other Four (04) persons, namely Bindeshwar Oraon, Laxhmi Oraon, Indradeo Oraon and Devender Oraon.

7. It appears that even the witnesses, namely Sameer Oraon and her one friend (name of witness not disclosed as she is also a juvenile), whose statements have been recorded in Para 6 and 7 of the Case Diary, have supported the case of the Informant- Victim Girl that Five persons, namely Naveen Oraon (i.e. the juvenile petitioner), Bindeshwar Oraon, Laxmi Oraon, Indradeo Oraon and Devendra Oraon had encircled them, however, they had rescued themselves from their clutches, but the accused persons apprehended the victim girl.

8. It appears from Para 14 of the Case Diary, which contains the confessional statement of the petitioner, that the juvenile petitioner has admitted for committing gang rape upon the victim girl along with other m