Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 286 of 2021 Revisionist :- Ravi Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Adil Jamal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bal Ram Gupta
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Heard Sri Adil Jamal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Bal Ram Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A.for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.12.2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 25, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2020 (Ravi Dubey vs. State of U.P.) under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 by means of which the order dated 10.11.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar has been affirmed and the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected in Case Crime No. 12 of 2020 under section 376, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Bidhnu, District Kanpur Nagar.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that there is no allegation of rape against the applicant in F.I.R. and in the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Victim is not shown to have sustained any injury in her medical report. He has further submitted that in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., after 14 days of lodging of F.I.R., victim has made allegation of rape against the applicant which is after thought. Revisionist has been implicated owing to village enmity.
Per-contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the present Revision. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 did not dispute the above facts as contended by learned counsel for the revisionist.
I have gone through the record.
Perusal of the record reveals that a case under Sections 354, 504 and 3(1)(da) of S.C./S.T. Act was registered against the applicant, Ravi Dubey in Crime No. 12 of 2020, P.S. Bidhnu, The revisionist has been declared juvenile by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board on 23.10.2020, aforesaid order is annexed at page nos. 72-73 of the paper book. Victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did not allege about the commission of rape, however, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for the first time, she alleged that revisionist raped her.
It is pertinent to note that F.I.R. was lodged on 10.01.2020 whereas victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 23.01.2020, nearly after 13 days of the lodging of the F.I.R. Possibility of after-thought of allegation of rape cannot be ruled out.
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 10.11.2020 as well as order dated 24.12.2020 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Ravi Dubey be released on bail on his father Sri Uma Shankar Dubey @ Dil Kumar Dubey 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 A. Mandhani