Point of Law: When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:

JUDGMENT :

1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2019 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Baghpat dismissing Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2019 ( Vikki Alias Vikas versus State of UP) filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act’) and affirming the order dated 4.9.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No.383 of 2017 under Section 376-D, 120-B, 452, 506, 504, 323, 34 IPC and Section 66A of I.T. Act and Section 62/63 of Copyright Act, P.S. Khekra, District Baghpat.

2. Heard Sri J.B. Singh, holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The prosecution case, as per the version of the FIR which was lodged by the mother of the victim, is that her daughter namely Km. Bharti was enticed away by co-accused Soni wife of Sunil, Sonam and Savita and thereafter revisionist Vikki alias Vikas committed rape with her and co-accused Sonu made the video clip of the same.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 3.10.2017 whereas the FIR was lodged on 11.10.2017 after a gap of 8 days but the victim has stated in her statement under Section 164 CrPC that the alleged incident took place on 16.11.2016. In fact, no such incident ever took place. The revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per medical report, the victim is major and she is aged about 21 years.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. He further submits that except this the revisionist has no previous criminal history. The brother of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep him under his custody and look after him properly. Further, the revisionist undertakes that he will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings. There was no report regarding any previous antecedents of family or background of the revisionist. There is no chance of revisionist’s re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile as he has already been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat. The revisionist was a juvenile aged 14 years and 10 months on the date of occurrence. He is in jail since 12.10.2017 in connection with the present crime and has already undergone and completed the period of the sentence out of the maximum three years institutional incarceration permissible for a juvenile, under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat upon which a report from the District Probation Officer was called for. The bail application was rejected vide order dated 4.9.2019, being aggrieved, the revisionist preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the Act, which was also dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2019. Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon’ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds:

(i) That the bail application of the revisionist was rejected by the court below in a very cursory and arbitrary manner.

(ii) That the revisionist, who is juvenile, is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated by the first informant in the present case.

(iii) That the cour