Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Lohra @ Rakesh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 June, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:16380]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.4913 of 2025
------
Suresh Lohra @ Rakesh, aged about 24 years, son of Madan Lohra,
resident of Village- Dumardih, P.O. & P.S.- Kolebira, District-
Simdega.
…. …. …. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Father of Victim …. …. …. Opposite Parties
——
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
——
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated-20-06-2025
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Kolebira P.S.
Case No.89 of 2023 corresponding to POCSO Case No.08 of 2024 registered
for the offences punishable under Section 366A, 341, 323, 376(3) of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 4, 6, 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act (POCSO) Act.
This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular
bail. Earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected vide
order dated 04th September, 2024 passed in B.A. No.5479 of 2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only fresh ground
is that after rejection of the bail application in the trial court, PW-6 Doctor
has been examined but he heads deposed that he found injuries indicating
sexual intercourse; including healed hymen tear with hymenal tags and
other injuries and assed the age of the victim to be between 17-18 years. It is
next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further
submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 05.03.2024 as is
evident from para-11 of the instant bail application. Hence, it is submitted
that the petitioner be released on bail.
Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail
of the petitioner.
Considering the fact that the prayer for regular bail for the petitioner
has already been rejected on merit, and the only fresh ground is that the
deposition of the PW-6; where she found injuries supporting sexual
intercourse with the victim; the same is not a ground to admit the petitioner
on bail, merely because the age was assessed to be between 17-18 years; as it
is a settled principle of law that assessment of age by medical examination
can have an error of two years on either side and if it is taken to be two years
on the lower side then the statement of the victim that she was 15 years old is
true. Hence, this Court is not inclined to admit the bail of the above named
petitioner at this stage.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is
rejected at this stage.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Saroj/