Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1114 of 2012 ====================================================== Mantulal Shrivastaw @ Mantu Kumar, under the guardian ship of his father Baleshwar Prasad Laal Shrivastaw, resident of village Gudgudi, P.S. Boberdhana, District West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Neelam Devi, wife of Vijay Lal Shriwastaw, resident of village Duggudi, P.S.Goverdhana,District West Champaran .... .... Opposite party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prithivi Nath Mishra, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Mr. Binod Kumar, Addl.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 29-11-2012 Heard. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, questioning the correctness and validity of the order dated 4.7.2012 passed in J.J.B. No. 267 of 2012 by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bettiah, West Champaran, as also the appellate order dated 27th August, 2012 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 84 of 2012 by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, whereby prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner in connection with Goverdhana P.S.Case No. 9 of 2012 dated 9.3.2012 registered under [STATUTE] has been rejected. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged to have committed rape upon a minor girl aged about 6 years. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declared to be juvenile by the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1114 of 2012 (3) dt.29-11-2012 2 / 2 2 order dated 4.7.2012 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bettiah. It is also contended that the petitioner is under detention since 27.3.2012. It is next contended that the petitioner has falsely been implicated due to certain land dispute. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar, has strongly opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted on behalf of the State that no document has been brought on record to show that there is enmity between the petitioner and his family members at one side and the victim and her family members at the other side. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the plea of enmity has been taken only for the purpose of getting benefit in the present case. After having heard the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation of rape upon a minor girl aged about 6 years, and also taking into consideration the other materials available on the record this Court is of the opinion that release of the petitioner on bail shall defeat the ends of justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to have the benefits of section 12(1) of the Act. Consequently, the application fails and is, accordingly, rejected. However, the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bettiah, West Champaran is directed to expedite the enquiry pending against the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 376

Statute Text:
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Rape. Whoever, commits an offence punishable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376 and in the course of such commission inflicts an injury which causes the death of the woman or causes the woman to be in a persistent vegetative state, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, or with death.