Point of law: Section 12 and 18 and also Section 15 (Section 15 not relevant in the case of a child below 16 years) and other relevant provisions all of which find place in Chapter IV of the Act are part of an integrated scheme. The power to grant bail to a juvenile under Section 12(1) cannot be exercised divorced from the other provisions or as the learned counsel for the revisionist argues on the other specific disentitling provisions in the grounds mentioned in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act. The submission made based on the rule of ejusdem generis urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist is misplaced, in the opinion of this Court.”

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This Criminal Revision, under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is directed against an order of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Etawah, dated 30.01.2019, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2019, preferred by the revisionist and affirming an order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Etawah, refusing the revisionist's bail plea in Case Crime No. 201 of 2018, under Sections 376, 2(1) IPC, Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah.

2. Heard Mr. Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State. The name of Mr. Ram Nath, Advocate appears for opposite party no. 2 and is shown in the cause list. When the matter was called on, no one has appeared on behalf of the second opposite party.

3. A First Information Report was lodged by the second opposite party with Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah giving rise to the present crime on 09.03.2018 at 49 minutes past 3 p.m. carrying allegations to the effect that she is a native of Ram Nagar Adda, Mauja Karaudhi, Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah and a member of the Dohre caste. On 09.03.2018 at about 12 noon while she was conventionally plastering the interiors of her home with clay, her four year old daughter strayed into the field playing along. She was accompanied by other small children. At that time, another native of the village, Raju son of Sughar Singh (the revisionist) took away her minor daughter to a mustard field. The other children informed the complainant that her daughter had been taken away by Raju. The complainant rushed to the mustard field raising alarm. It is alleged in the FIR that the complainant saw the revisionist ravish her daughter. The complainant/ opposite party no. 2 has said in the first information that she attempted to apprehend the revisionist, but he escaped her clutches and took to his heals. Other natives of the village also arrived and that with the assistance of those others, she has come over to report the matter to the police. In her statement, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the young prosecutrix has supported the prosecution.

4. The Juvenile Justice Board by their order dated 12.12.2018 refused bail to the revisionist, pending trial. On Appeal, that order has been affirmed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Etawah by the order impugned.

5. Aggrieved, this Revision has been preferred.

6. Mr. Akash Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionist has apparently a very difficult task to persuade this Court that it is a case where the revisionist ought to be released on bail, pending trial. This Court does not have the slightest hesitation to place on record its appreciation for the most remarkable manner in which Mr. Mishra has discharged his difficult brief. His submission is short but formidable in the circumstances. He candidly acknowledges the fact that the prosecutrix is a child of four years, who has spoken inculpatory against the revisionist in her statement, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. He submits, however, that circumstances to place his case in that exception to Section 12(1) of the Act, where release on bail of the child in conflict with law would defeat the ends of justice, is not at all discernible here. He points out that the statement of the young prosecutrix is so unnatural that it is hard to believe that she could have ever made it. He has taken this Court through the statement of the prosecutrix made before the Magistrate. This Court on a perusal of the same, read in isolation, would be inclined to agree with Mr. Mishra that the statement is most unnatural. This Court is, indeed, surprised how a child that young could have come out with the kind of graphic description, that makes for the prosecutrix's statement, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in this case. Read