Despite service of notice, no one is present on behalf of opposite party no.2 .
Heard Sri Pradeep Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned judgments.
This revision has been filed challenging order dated 1.1.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia whereby the bail application of the revisionist in Misc.Case No. 41 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 157 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366,376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Rasra, District Ballia was rejected as well as the order dated 22.2.2021 passed by Special Judge(POCSO Act)/Additional & Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ballia whereby the Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2021 filed against the same has also been dismissed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is in Observation Home for the last one year. The revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that from perusal of statement of victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that victim was consenting party as she went with the applicant to Mau in a jeep and thereafter she went to Azamgarh by bus without raising any alarm. He next submitted that as per medical report, the age of victim is above 17 years and two years' variation on higher side is possible. Hence no offence is made out against the revisionist. He further argued that admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile and while deciding the bail application, the Juvenile Justice Board has solely considered the gravity of the offence alleged and had not even considered the requirement of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act'). He lastly argued that the Appellate Court has also committed the same error in dismissing the appeal.
I have perused the orders rejecting the bail application and the appeal, who do not record any reasons as required in terms of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act.
Considering the age of the revisionist who is minor and in custody since 25.9.2020, the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and orders dated 1.1.2021 and 22.2.2021 are set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is also allowed.
Let revisionist Aasif Ansari be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board concerned.
Order Date :- 25.8.2021 P.P.