Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 687 of 2021 Revisionist :- Harun @ Arun Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bachan Singh
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
List has been revised.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. No one is present on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
This revision has been filed challenging order dated 4.2.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Rape case and POCSO Act) Juvenile Court No.1, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2020 (Harun @ Arun Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 3.12.2020 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad in Case Crime No. 06 of 2020 under Section 328, 363, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Niwadi, District Ghaziabad by which bail application of revisionist was rejected.
It is submitted by learned Counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is juvenile and has been falsely implicated in this case. The statement of victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which she has stated that she was in love with the revisionist and went to Delhi with him with her own will and there was no allegation of rape against the revisionist. The statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has again stated that she went with the revisionist and stayed with the revisionist for 3-4 days. As per medical report, victim is about 17 years old and two years variation on upper side is possible and as such she is major and from the statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it appears that she is consenting party and no offence is made out against the revisionist. He submits 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 argues that the Appellate Court had committed the same error in dismissing the appeal.
I have perused the orders that reject the bail application and the appeal, which 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 detained in Child Care Centre since 7.1.2020, the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and orders dated 4.2.2021 and 3.12.2020 are set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is also allowed.
Let revisionist Harun @ Arun be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board concerned.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 S. Singh