Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2345 of 2016 Revisionist :- Vishal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Srivastava,Dwijendra Prasad,Saksham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravi Prakash Singh,Shailendra Ratan Bhushan
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. (opposite party no. 1).
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.7.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2016 [Vishal v. State of U.P.], whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 24.4.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh was dismissed. By the said order dated 24.4.2016, Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh had rejected the bail application of juvenile (revisionist) in Case No. 64 of 2016 (State v. Vishal) arising out of case crime no. 574 of 2015 under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station -Delhi Gate , District - Aligarh.
As per prosecution version, the prosecutrix aged about 16 years who was going to temple, in the way revisionist and other person took her to Haridwar and kept there and committed rape on her.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that in the present case, no good ground, as specified in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short 'the Act') exists for rejecting the bail application.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that revisionist is in Care and Protection Home for since 19.10.2015. Allegation of false rape is made against revisionist. According to Section 15 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, a juvenile cannot be directed to put in Special Home for a period of more than three years. According to medical report, the age of the prosecutrix is 18 years. Lastly, learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist has no any criminal antecedents.
Per contra, learned A.G.A., has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. In the report of District Probation Officer, Aligarh, it is mentioned that there is lack of effective control of the family members over the juvenile.
Courts below have rejected the bail of the revisionist on the basis of report of District Probation Officer, Aligarh, in which, it is mentioned that involvement of the juvenile in the occurrence cannot be ruled out. There is nothing adverse against the revisionist in the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, Aligarh. Moreover, there is no material evidence on record to show that release of revisionist (juvenile) is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat ends of justice.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the revisionist deserves to be released on bail.
Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed. Impugned judgments/orders passed by the courts below are hereby set aside.
Let the revisionist Vishal (Juvenile) be enlarged on bail in case crime no. 574 of 2015 under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station -Delhi Gate, District - Aligarh on his furnishing a personal bond by his legal guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned.
Let a certified copy of this order be provided to the courts below for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Jaswant