Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 888 of 2021 Revisionist :- Omkar Manjhi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Bare Lal,Anurag Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2.
Heard Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.12.2020 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj in Case No.88 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Omkar Manjhi), arising out of Case Crime No.0070 of 2020, under Sections 376D I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Shankergarh, District Prayagraj, and impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2020 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2020, Computer Registration No.59 of 2020 (Omkar Manjhi Vs. State of U.P.).
It is submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that revisionist is juvenile and has been falsely implicated in this case. The revisionist was not named in the F.I.R. and in the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., no allegation of rape has been levelled against the revisionist. The revisionist is in Juvenile Home since 25.2.2020. There is no criminal history of the revisionist. The bail application of revisionist was rejected by Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj vide order dated 4.12.2020 and criminal appeal preferred by revisionist was also dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Allahabad vide order dated 23.12.2020. 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 A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.
I have perused the orders rejecting the bail application and the appeal, who 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 in custody since 25.2.2020, the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and orders dated 4.12.2020 and 23.12.2020 are set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is also allowed.
Let revisionist Omkar Manjhi 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 :- 28.9.2021 Kpy