A juvenile's mental health and circumstances surrounding the case can influence sentencing and the decision to grant bail, particularly in cases involving allegations of consensual relationships.

ORDER :

The present Criminal Revision No. 565 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the juvenile-petitioner by challenging the judgment dated 07.03.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2019 by Sri Choudhary Ahsan Moiz, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Pakur whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Pakur has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2019 by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2017 passed by Sri Sandip Kumar Bertam, learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur in Mahespur P.S. Case No. 234 of 2015 corresponding to G. R. No. 1088 of 2015 [T.R. No. 30 of 2017] by which the juvenile-petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 3 76 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Sections 3 /4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to undergo to the Special Home for his detention for a period of three (3) years for the offences under Section 3 76 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Sections 3 /4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

2. However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. I. A. No. 6082 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail, during pendency of the Criminal Revision Application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the juvenile-petitioner is mental patient. It is submitted that before conviction, the juvenile- petitioner had remained in remand home from 18.05.2016 to 07.10.2016 i.e. for around four months. It is further submitted that the juvenile-petitioner has surrendered on 24.04.2024 i.e for about one year and he is in detention of the Remand Home since 24.04.2024 and as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner has committed rape upon the victim girl on the pretext of marriage and has established physical relationship with her for around three (3) months and hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and order of sentence and as such, the prayer for bail may be rejected.

7. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records of this case.

8. It appears from the Lower Court Records that the informant, who is the victim girl i.e. P.W.-7 has lodged the FIR against the petitioner on 01.12.2015 for the occurrence said to have taken place from the year 2014 till lodging of F.I.R.

9. It appears from the record that charge sheet was submitted on 21.07.2016 for the offence under Section 3 76 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Sections 3 /4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Thereafter, the trial began before the J. J. Board, Pakur.

10. It transpires that during trial the prosecution got examined eight (8) witnesses, who were as follows:

(i) PW-1 is Sapan Kumar Mandal,

(ii) P.W.-2 is Arun Kumar Mandal,

(iii) P.W.-3 is Abul Kalam Sheikh @ Kalam Sheikh,

(iv) P.W.-4 is father of the Victim girl,

(v) P.W.-5 is mother of the Victim girl,

(vi) P.W.-6 is Dr. Navina Barla,

(vii) P.W.-7 is Prosecutrix, Victim girl and

(viii) P.W.-8 is ASI Surendra Kumar Singh and I.O. of this case.

11. The prosecution got exhibited the following documents, which were as follows:-

(i) Ext.-1 is Medical report prepared by Dr. Navina Barla dated 01.12.2015,

(ii) Ext.-