This revision has been filed by the revisionist under the provisions of Section 53 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ( for the sake of convenience hereinafter referred to as 'Act' ) feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 30.7.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2009 and dated 16.7.2009 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad in Case Crime No. 221/2009 under Section 364 I.P.C., Police Station Khandasa, district Faizabad. An F.I.R. was lodged by one Smt. Junnatul Nisha on 6.5.2009 against 6 persons including the revisionist. In the F.I.R. the complainant has said that on 8.4.2009 her daughter Km. Gulista Bano, aged about 10 years and who is a student of Class V had gone to her school in Amanganj. When in the evening she did not come back home, the complainant went to her school to inquire about her. She was informed by the teachers of the school that immediately after the mid-day recess she had gone back to her house. In the F.I.R. it has been further mentioned that some two months before the said incident, all the accused persons named in the F.IR.. had threatened her that they will abduct Km. Gulista Bano. In this background the complainant has further said in her F.I.R. that she has reasons to believe that the accused persons has abducted Km. Gulista Bano in order to kill her. The F.I.R was lodged as Case Crime No. 221/2009, under Section 364 I.P.C. at Police Station Khandasa, district Faizabad. During the course of investigation the revisionist was arrested by the police.
A bail application was moved before the learned Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad which was rejected by him on 16.7.2009. Feeling aggrieved by this rejection order, the revisionist filed a criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad who after hearing both the parties dismissed the appeal on 30.7.2009. The revisionist has felt aggrieved by both the orders mentioned above. Hence this revision.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The learned A.G.A. has opposed this revision.
From the perusal of the records it is evident that after her recovery Smt. Gulista Bano (alleged abductee) was produced before the learned Magistrate where she was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She has said that she was abducted by the revisionist and some other unknown persons who took her to a place where she was locked in a room for a month or so. Though at every evening she was supplied with food but she was often assaulted by the abductors. After a month or so she was set free by the abductors. Incidentally a friend of her father met her who took her to her house.
In this case a supplementary report was called for from the District Probation Officer, Faizabad. The District Probation Officer has said in his report that there is a likelihood that the revisionist might have been falsely implicated in the case due to certain enmity existing between the families of the revisionist and the complainant of the F.I.R. The District Probation Officer has further reported that the financial condition of the family of the revisionist is not good but nowhere he has mentioned that family members or especially father of the revisionist is a person of bad character and if the revisionist is given to his custody he will be exposed to criminal surroundings.
It is a case in which the revisionist has been allegedly involved under Section 364 I.P.C. From the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is evident that she was kept in captivity for some 30 days. Had it been the intention of the revisionist or other abductors to kill her, the victim would have been eliminated immediately after she was kidnapped but this has not been done. The age of the revisionist is only 14 years.
I have gone through both the orders impugned in this revision. I find that both, the learned Principal, Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board and learned Sessions Judge, have not cared to go deep in the matter as is required in such sensitive cases where infants are involved. Both the courts below should have discussed the reasons at lease in a little detail but they have not done so. Both the orders impugned have been passed in a proto type and cursory manner as if they want to get rid of an unwarranted burden thrust upon them. Both the courts below have failed to appreciate the intention and the spirit under which the Act has been enacted.
On the basis of the above discussion, I am of the view that both the orders impugned in this revision are bad in the eyes of law and should be quashed and set aside.
It also appears necessary that the revisionist should be enlarged on bail at the earliest possible.
The revision is allowed. Both the orders impugned in this revision are quashed and set aside. The revisionist is admitted to bail in Case Crime No. 221/2009 under Section 364 I.P.C., Police Station Khandasa, district Faizabad subject to his furnishing adequate bonds to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad.
Order Date :- 18.1.2010 S.B.