##PAGE1##

[2026:JHHC:8731

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 164 of 2026

Maithyus Hansda aged about 17 years approx, through her Natural Guardian i.e., Mother Jasinta Soren W/o Sufal Hansda @ Thenta Dhabdu Hansda, Both are residents of Village- Bada Sindri, P.O+P.S-

Sundarpahari, District Godda ...... Appellant Versus

The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. S.P.Roy, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumr Verma, Addl. PP

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 101 (5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Children Court, Godda in Children Case no. 01 of 2026 corresponding to Misc. Crl. Appl. No.59/2026 arising out of Sundarpahari P.S. Case No.32 of 2025 corresponding to Special (POCSO) Case no. 66A of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 70 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, whereby the bail petition filed by the

Child in Conflict with Law, has been rejected.

3. The allegation against the appellant is that the appellant has committed aggravated sexual assault upon a minor victim girl.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Children Court has failed to consider that the prosecutrix, in Children Case No.01 of 2026, has been examined as P.W.1 and she has not identified the appellant and stated that she has not seen any of her assailants and though she was declared hostile and the prosecution put leading questions to her; still she did not support

1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 164 of 2026

[2026:JHHC:8731

the case of the prosecution. Similarly, the learned Children Court failed to consider that the P.W.2 and P.W.3 have also been examined and they have also not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been declared hostile and they have also not identified the Child in Conflict with Law. It is further submitted that the learned Children Court also failed to consider that co-accused persons namely Fate @ Surendra Murmu @ Surendra Marandi and Edward Marandi @ Edwad Marandi who are facing trial in the court of Special Judge, POCSO, Godda, have already been admitted to bail. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Children Court, Godda in Children Case no. 01 of 2026 corresponding to Misc. Crl. Appl. No.59/2026 arising out of Sundarpahari P.S. Case No.32 of 2025 corresponding to Special (POCSO) Case no. 66A of 2025, be set aside and the appellant be

admitted to bail.

5. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the appellant, the learned Children Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting his prayer for bail. Hence, it is submitted that

this Criminal Appeal (SJ), being without any merit, be dismissed.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that the learned Children Court, Godda has committed a grave illegality in rejecting the prayer for bail of the appellant when neither the victim herself nor the other witnesses examined in this case, have stated anything to implicate the appellant in this case; as none of them have identified the appellant. Under such circumstances, the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Children Court, Godda in Children Case no. 01 of 2026 corresponding to Misc. Crl. Appl. No.59/2026 arising out of Sundarpahari P.S. Case No.32 of 2025 corresponding to Special (POCSO) Case no. 66A of

2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 164 of 2026

[2026:JHHC:8731

2025, is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated