IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.264 of 2019

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2018 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Siwan

======================================================

Godhan Ram @ Manish Kumar, Under the Guardianship of Father Tarachand

Ram, aged about 57 years (Male), S/o Sukhari Ram R/o village- Sarawe, P.S-

Siwan Muffasil, District- Siwan

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.Md. Ataur Rahman

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR

MISHRA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 22-05-2020

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned A.P.P. appearing for the State through Video Conferencing.

The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision,

under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children), Act, 2015, against the Judgment dated 19.11.2018

passed in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2018, whereby the learned

Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Siwan, dismissed

the said Criminal Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the

order dated 03.05.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board,

Siwan, in G.R. No. 632 of 2018, Siwan Mahila P.S. Case No. 6 of

2018 corresponding to Juvenile Trial No. 45 of 2018 registered

under Sections 376, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.264 of 2019 dt.22-05-2020

2/4

Section 4 of the POCSO Act rejecting the prayer for bail of the

petitioner.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that at about 2 P.M., on

02.02.2018, Sonam Kumari, daughter of the informant, Sandhya

Devi, was served carrot by the petitioner and took her at his house

and committed rape. When the informant came to know about the

incident then went at the house of the petitioner and made

complaint, where mother, brother and other family members of the

petitioner started to scuffle with the informant and threatened to

kill her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to

dirty village politics the informant lodged the present case with

false allegation. After apprehending by the police, the petitioner

was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Siwan, where he

was declared juvenile assessing his age in between 14 to 15 years.

Thereafter, petitioner prayed for bail before the Juvenile Justice

Board, Siwan, who rejected the same vide order dated 03.05.2018

and thereafter, petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2018

against the said order, which was also dismissed vide Judgment

dated 19.11.2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan,

illegally against the spirit of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice

(Care and Protection of Children) act, 2000.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.264 of 2019 dt.22-05-2020

3/4

From perusal of he impugned order, it appears that the

learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Siwan,

dismissed the aforesaid Criminal Appeal preferred by the

petitioner taking into consideration that nature of offence and also

arriving at the conclusion that the release of the petitioner will

bring him into association with criminal or expose him.

On bare reading of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice

(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, it appears that a

juvenile in conflict with law ordinarily has to be released on bail

irrespective of the nature of offence committed by him unless it is

shown that there appears reasonable grounds for believing that his

release is likely to bring him into association with any known

criminals or expose him to moral danger or that his release would

defeat the ends of Justice. The impugned Judgment does not

disclosed about apprehension of court of going of petitioner in the

association of known criminals. As such, the refusal of the prayer

of bail of the petitioner is u