Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2194 of 2020 Revisionist :- Narendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Chandra Bhushan Singh,Ravindra Kumar Yadav,Yashpal Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hemant Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
None appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite service of notice.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Rape and POCSO Act), Court No. 2, Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2020 (Narendra vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 14.09.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh in Case Crime No. 80 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC, Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Nizambad, District Azamgarh whereby both the Courts below have rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court have passed the impugned orders erroneously by which they have rejected the application of bail of the accused-revisionist, who is a minor below 16 years as per the determination of age made by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 05.08.2020. The accused-revisionist is lying in jail since 01.06.2020, the outer limit for which the accused can be punished for the offence is only three years. It is further submitted that the victim in her statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. has clearly stated that she went with the revisionist out of her own sweet will. Victim has also stated that she married to the revisionist. He is absolutely innocent as in the social investigation report nothing adverse has been found to the effect that if he is released on bail, he would come in association with hardened criminals. In the report of D.P.O. it has been stated that the revisionist and the victim were in love with each other. The trial court has erroneously mentioned that the purpose of justice would be frustrated in case the accused-revisionist is released on bail. He has further pointed out that in the medical examination report of the victim, no injury has been found to have been caused either on her person or on her private part.
Learned A.G.A. did not dispute the aforesaid facts.
I have gone through the FIR, as per which, the occurrence has taken place on 17.05.2020, at about 11:00AM, the victim had gone somewhere and thereafter the father of the victim had got the FIR lodged. No role has been assigned to the accused-revisionist in the F.I.R. In the statement of victim under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. also, the victim has not supported the prosecution version and stated that she went with the revisionist out of her own sweet will. Victim has also stated that she married to the revisionist. The medical examination of the victim could not be conducted as the victim has refused to get herself medically examined.
A perusal of the impugned orders would indicate that both the forum below have rejected the bail application of the accused-revisionist only on the ground of offence being very serious/heinous and they have not taken into consideration the mandatory provision of grant of bail as provided under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) (Amended) Act 2015 wherein it is laid-down that the bail could be refused to the accused-juvenile only when he is likely to come into association with any known criminal or would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. No such evidence appears to be there on record, collected by the prosecution side including that of social investigation report which would indicate evidence to above effect.
In view of the above, this is found to be a fit case for grant of bail. The revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 14.09.2020 as well as order dated 21.10.2020 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Narendra (Minor) be released on bail on his father Sri Suresh Ram furnishing a personal bond of Rs.one lac 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 :- 22.9.2021 VPS