Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 321 (JHR)

Mangal Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2008-03-14

D.K.SINHA

body2008
Order Heard. 2. The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision under Section 53 of the. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 with the prayer for his release on bail. 3. The prosecution story in short was that the prosecutrix Rabina Kumari alleged in the statement before the police on 10.7.2007 narrating that on 7.7.2007 at around 9 a.m. while she was alone in her house, her father Sunil Paswan had been to Bhagalpur and her mother was out to graze the cattle, the petitioner came there and informed about the telephone call of her maternal grandmother at the telephone booth under the waiting made. The prosecutrix accompanied the petitioner to the STD booth where she was taken inside a room and the door was bolted by the petitioner from inside. She further narrated. that the petitioner committed rape forcibly after gagging her mouth and removing her undergarment as also by putting her on the earth. When she attempted to scream, she was terrorized to be strangulated. She returned back to her home when the petitioner escaped and narrated the occurrence to her mother who by that time had arrived. On return of her father from Bhagalpur the occurrence was narrated to him and thereafter her statement was recorded by the police. 4. According to the learned counsel Mr. K.P. Deo, the petitioner was declared Juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar on 24.8.2007. But the prayer for his release on bail was rejected by the J.J. Board, Deoghar on the same day on 24.8.2007 against which appeal was preferred under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 before the Sessions Judge, Deoghar. His prayer for bail was refused by the order impugned dated 14.9.2007 with the observation that the release of the petitioner, in the nature of the offence as alleged against him, would defeat the ends of justice. 5. Mr. Deo submitted that the learned Sessions Judge failed to discuss as to under what manner the release of the juvenile would defeat the ends of justice who is in custody since 30.7.2007. By placing of a xerox copy of the medical examination report of the victim the learned counsel submitted that no injury was found on the private part of the body of the proscutrix. Even there was no redness, tenderness and bleeding. By placing of a xerox copy of the medical examination report of the victim the learned counsel submitted that no injury was found on the private part of the body of the proscutrix. Even there was no redness, tenderness and bleeding. In the opinion of the Doctor no clinical sign was suggested with regard to possibility of sexual intercourse. 6. The learned APP opposed the bail and submitted that the petitioner has been remanded for the heinous offence of rape on a minor girl who does not deserve leniency. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view of the detention of the petitioner since 30.7.2007 and the mandatory provision of Section 12 of the Act, I direct the petitioner Mangal Singh to be released on executing bail of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar in Godda (M) P. S. Case No. 192 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 744 of 2007 with the condition that parents of the petitioner would be his bailors who would take care of him and produce the petitioner before the J.J. Board Deoghar during enquiry on the first week of every month preferably on Monday, failing which J.J. Board shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order. 8. This Criminal Revision is allowed.