Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3302 of 2019 Revisionist :- Sanjay (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Prem Shankar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Prem Shankar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Accused-revisionist has preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 5.6.2018 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 1, Hamirpur passed in Criminal Appeal N. 18 of 2018 (Sanjay Vs. State of U.P.), which was filed against the judgment and order dated 25.7.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Bail Application No. 30 of 2017 pertaining to Case Crime No. 421 of 2016 u/s 363, 376D, 120B IPC and Section 4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, P.S. Maudaha, District Hamirpur, whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board has dismissed the the bail application of the accused. The said order of dismissal of bail application has been upheld in the judgment and order of appeal dated 5.6.2018 . Both the orders i.e. orders of Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court have been challenged before this Court.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the accused-revisionist has been found to be less than 18 years of age as per medical report given by the C.M.O., Chitrakoot/Banda/Hamirpur dated 25.4.2017. Juvenile Justice Board has decided the age of the victim to be less than 18 years. It is further argued that co-accused Rohit has already been granted bail in Crl. Revision No. 3191 of 2017 vide order dated 18.9.2018 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which is annexed at page 71 of the paper book. It is further argued that victim was tenant in the house of revisionist and when rent was asked for, the same was not paid and because of this, accused-revisionist has been falsely implicated.
It is further argued that in social investigation report, nothing incriminatory has come on record to show that in case the accused is released on bail, he would come in the association of harden criminal or that his release would expose him to moral, physical, and psychological threat or that his release would defeat the ends of justice, which are three necessary ingredients.
The Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have dismissed the bail application treating the offence to be of a serious nature which is against provisions of law, hence both the orders need to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the quashing of bail rejection order but could not controvert the aforesaid fact.
I have gone through the F.I.R., as per it, the occurrence is stated to have taken place on 19.8.2016 at 11:00 am, when the daughter of the informant i.e. victim aged about 16 years had gone to shop to purchase some articles. At the time when she had gone for making purchase, two sons of house owner Babli namely, Rohit (co-accused) and Sanjay (accused-revisionist), were at home, with the said accused, there were other co- accused namely, Shani and Golu. When the informant had gone in search of her daughter, house owner Babli, his sons Rohit, Sanjay and Shani, Golu had pursued her and hence apprehension was expressed that these boys had hand in abduction of her daughter/victim, hence F.I.R. was lodged against the accused-revisionist.
In statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. given by the victim, it is stated by her that two days prior to the occurrence, accused- revisionist had given her Laddu and after consuming which she felt dizzy. On 19.8.2016, mother of the accused-revisionist had asked the mother of the victim to vacate the house as they were living on rent. On 19.8.2016, mother of the co-accused Golu (Shanu) had closed the mouth of the victim by a cloth and she was taken to some place and at that time Sanjay, Shanu, Golu, Sani and Rohit were there and when she regained consciousness she found herself in a room, which was closed. She has stated that there was some wrong act committed with her.
In the medical examination report, there was no external injuries found and as her hymen was found ruptured, old and healed. She was found about 17 years old.
From the statement given by the victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C., there is no specific allegation against this accused-revisionist. Co- accused Rohit has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It appears that Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have not taken into consideration these aspects of the matter and have dismissed the bail application only on the basis of seriousness of the offence, which is not sole consideration while considering the bail of juvenile, hence I find that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the accused-revisionist.
In view of above, this court is of the view that this revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed. The order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 25.7.2017 as well as order dated 5.6.2018 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Sanjay be released on bail on his uncle Sri Ram Shanker furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board with condition that he shall not allow the revisionist to come in association with any hardened criminal 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.
Juvenile Justice Board is directed to ensure that it passes order expeditiously in terms of the provision 15 read section 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as to whether accused deserves to be tried as an accused or not, so that no jurisdictional error occurs in trial of the present case.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 A.P. Pandey