Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2555 of 2019 Revisionist :- Jitendra Kumar (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Jee Saxena,R0057,Raghuvansh Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ram Jee Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Attrey Dutt Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
None has appeared from the side of opposite party no. 2.
This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Agra and order dated 14.03.2019 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Agra, arising out of Crime No. 510 of 2018, under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Malpura, District Agra.
The main argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is not named in the F.I.R. There is no medical examination conducted of the victim, though it is alleged that the accused revisionist had committed rape upon the victim. Neither the Juvenile Justice Board and nor the appellate court have taken into consideration as to whether there was any statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the same is not found on record nor any reference is made in the order of the forums' below. The bail application has been dismissed in a routine manner only holding that the offence was of the serious nature and the necessary considerations which were required to be made as per the provisions under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which provides that for considering the bail of the juvenile it has to be seen as to whether if the accused is released on bail he would come in company of hardened criminal, or would be exposed to the physical, psychological or moral threat or that would defeat the ends of justice. It appears that only on the ground that the offence is of serious nature, the bail application was rejected. In view of this as well as looking to the fact that the accused is lying in jail since 06.06.2018 and has no criminal history, the impugned orders need to be set-aside and the accused revisionist should be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing but could not controvert the aforesaid facts.
I have gone through the F.I.R. In which the informant has simply mentioned that on 03.05.2018, between 04:00 to 05:00 A.M., her daughter/victim aged about 16 years and 8 months had gone away from home without telling. A lot of search was made but she could not be found.
It is not made clear from the side of prosecution as to how the name of the present accused has come into light, in the present case. Even the statement of the victim given under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not been annexed. In social investigation report also, nothing incriminatory have been found on record against the accused revisionist, only this much has been mentioned that on account of their being suspicion of love relationship between the revisionist and victim and due to enmity between the family of the accused revisionist and victim, the revisionist might have been falsely implicated in the present case.
In view of the above, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. The revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Agra and order dated 14.03.2019 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Agra, are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist-Jitendra Kumar (Minor) be released on bail on his father Sri Shiv Prasad furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board on furnishing an undertaking that he shall not allow the revisionist to come in association with any hardened criminal and shall take care of his education and well being and that on each and every date of trial, he shall also appear before the court concerned. In case, he makes any default, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 VPS