Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4698 of 2019 Revisionist :- Mohd. Salman (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kameshwar Singh,Chandra Bhushan Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. List has been revised.
Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Chandra Bhushan Tiwari, 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 22.11.2019 passed by learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), District Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019 (Mohd. Salman Vs. State of U.P.), whereby appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed confirming the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffar Nagar in Case Crime No. 56 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar, 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. It is further submitted that as per report of the concerned Chief Medical Officer, age of the victim has been assessed as 17 years and two years variation on upper side is possible and as such she is major. It appears that the victim is a consenting party as per statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During the trial, the victim appeared before the Court below as P.W.1 and she has not supported the prosecution case and denied the allegations that the revisionist has committed rape with her , copy of the statement of the victim recorded as P.W.1 has been annexed as SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 05.02.2021. It is thus contended that in view of the statement of the victim recorded as P.W.1, 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 12.02.2019, the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and orders dated 22.11.2019 and 18.10.2019 are set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is also allowed.
Let revisionist Mohd. Salman 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 :- 6.10.2021 S.Ali