Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2021 of 2019 Revisionist :- Rihan (Juvenile) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
IInd Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.05.2019 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7 Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2019 (Rihan vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 12.03.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly in Case Crime No. 851 of 2018 under section 363, 366, 376 IPC, section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly 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 accused- revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no. 2 who is mother of the victim. In medical examination report, the victim is found to be 18 years while the accused is a juvenile of just 16 years seven months old. The victim has refused to get herself medically examined because she had stated in her statement under section 164 Cr.P/C. that the accused had not abducted her or enticed her away. There was no role of accused in the present crime. Further it is argued that in the social investigation report, nothing such has been brought on record which would indicate that in case the accused is released on bail, he would come in association with the harden criminal or that he would be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger and that the same would defeat the ends of justice and yet the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have rejected his bail application erroneously. therefore, both the orders of Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court need to be quashed.
I have gone through the FIR as well as the orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court. According to FIR, the accused revisionist along with two other co-accused had enticed away the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 on 4.7.2018 and therefore it was expressed in the said FIR that she apprehended danger to life of her daughter. Pursuant to that investigation was conducted and it is reported that the charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer.
Perusal of the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court both reveal that the sole ground of rejection of bail application is that in case the accused is released on bail, he would come in association with hardened criminal and it would not be in the interest of justice to release him on bail. This opinion has been expressed on the basis of report submitted by Probation Officer and besides that seriousness of the offence has also been taken into consideration. I do not find anything mentioned in the social investigation report which would reveal that there was any such evidence gathered by the prosecution that if the accused is released on bail, he would come in association with hardened criminal, this burden could not have been shifted on the accused to show that if he is released on bail, he would not come in association with any hardened criminal as appears to be reason given by the appellate court for rejecting the bail application.
Looking to the fact that neither the victim has supported the prosecution version in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. nor did she permit herself to be medically examined, would indicate that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the accused revisionist. However, it is also noteworthy that the Juvenile Justice Board was supposed to express its opinion and give finding as per provision given under section 18 (3) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 as to whether the trial of the accused was liable to proceed as an adult or should he be tried by Juvenile Justice Board. The Juvenile Justice Board is directed to give its finding with respect to the said mandatory provision also so that no infirmity occurs in the jurisdiction of the trial of the present accused.
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 12.3.2019 as well as order dated 03.05.2019 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist-Rihan (Juvenile) be released on bail on his father Sri Raunaq Ali 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 :- 31.7.2019 AU