RANCHI, India, Nov. 6 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 6:

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. This criminal revision petition has been filed under section 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023, for setting aside the order dated 03.7.2025 passed in M.C.A. Case No.355 of 2025 whereby the discharge petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the learned court of Special Judge Exclusive (POCSO) Act, Jamshedpur which was registered in connection with Mango (Ulidih) P.S Case No.306 of 2024, re-registered as Spl. POCSO Case No.1/ 2025 under sections 126(2), 127(2), 74, 75, 352, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO, Jamshedpur.

3. The FIR has been registered alleging therein that daughter of the informant who is aged about 11 years was very quiet since few days. Upon enquiry, it was revealed by the victim that the petitioner who was residing on 6 th floor of the same building tried to outrage the modesty of the victim on 3.11.2024. The victim has informed that on 3.11.2024 when she went for cycling the petitioner was grazing upon her with a preying eye. Later on when the victim climbed the lift to go to her flat, the petitioner also entered in the lift and tried to outrage the modesty of the victim. Later on the petitioner has threatened the victim to stay silent on the incident or else there will be dire consequences. The victim girl thereby stayed silent for four days but upon enquiry made by her mother she narrated the entire incident to her mother. Her mother thereafter confronted to petitioner and raised this issue with his parents and informed the society members and pursuant thereto, FIR was filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after investigation police has submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid sections and thereafter the learned Special Judge took cognizance over the matter. He further submits that after the cognizance was taken, the petitioner filed a petition for discharge which has been rejected by the learned court. The only point has been argued before this Court that unsoundness of mind of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration by the learned court while deciding the discharge petition and has been pleased to dismiss the discharge petition. He then submits that in light of Section 367 and 369 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner is required to be discharged. He also submits that in view of the reasons made under section 367 of BNSS, 2023, the learned Magistrate was required to make enquiry with regard to the unsoundness of mind of the petitioner however, which has not been done and in view of that, the impugned order may kindly be set aside.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that on the ground of unsoundness of mind of the petitioner, a petition has been filed for discharge. She further submits that no cogent reason has been given before the learned court to prove about the unsoundness of mind of the petitioner. She also submits that in light of section 367 of BNSS, 2023, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to pray before the learned court to make an enquiry with regard to unsoundness of mind of the petitioner, however, the petitioner straightway has filed the discharge petition saying that the petitioner is of unsound mind and on this ground she submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and as such, this petition may kindly be dismissed.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x31XQoMHxrcVu%2BOFJYttuwvgsplYqFnimm3t6%2BtnAsW3&caseno=Cr.Rev./857/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010254792025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.