Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1956 of 2021 Revisionist :- Kapil Kumar (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Hemendra Pratap Singh,Anshu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kalim Uddin
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Kalim Uddin, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State.
This revision has been filed challenging order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh whereby the bail application of the revisionist in Misc. Case No. 45 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 120 of 2020, under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Bartla, District Aligarh was rejected as well as the order dated 5.8.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge(POCSO Act), Aligarh whereby the Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2020 filed against the same has also been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist argues that the revisionist is juvenile and has been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR was lodged after about six months of alleged incident on 12.9.2020 whereas the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 17.3.2020. He further submitted that from perusal of FIR as well as statements of victim under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that victim was consenting party as no complaint or information was given just after the incident and she was pregnant of six months which was aborted with the help of mother of juvenile. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has no criminal history and he was detained in juvenile home since 21.10.2020. He argues 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.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail.
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 aforesaid facts and age of the revisionist who is minor and in custody since 21.10.2020, the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned orders dated 16.12.2020 and 5.8.2021 are set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is also allowed.
Let revisionist Kapil Kumar 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 :- 23.9.2021 P.P.