Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 452, 392, 364, 376-D, 506 - POCSO Act, 2015 - Section 5G, 6, 12, 18(1)(g) – Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Section 161, 164 – Gang Rape – Kidnapping or abducting in order to Murder – Punishment for criminal intimidation - Prosecution case, as per version of FIR is that when informant was getting threshed hey-ricks, his daughter aged about 14 years, was alone in house and finding her alone, S sneaked into his house and stolen Rs. 10,000/- and anklet weighing 10 tolas, kept in box and while his daugher prevented them from doing so, they gagged her mouth and their two aides, who were waiting outside house, they all kidnapped her and outraged her modesty and they all threatened him that they would done him to death and they all barged into his house threatened him.
Findings of the Court - There appears to be no distinguishing feature from case of said co-accused, who is adult offender circumstanced identically as revisionist - There is no justification to hold revisionist not entitled to liberty of bail - It is also taken note of by this Court that revisionist has by now done more than half of institutional incarceration - Maximum period for which a juvenile can be incarcerated in whatever form of detention, is three years, going by provisions of Section 18(1)(g) of Act - Both courts below have passed impugned judgment and orders in cursory manner without placing due reliance on report submitted by District Probation Officer as well as facts and circumstances of case -This Court, thus, finds that impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside and reversed.
Result - Revision allowed.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Despite notice issue to opposite party No. 2, which has been served personally upon him, no one has put in appearance on his behalf nor any counter affidavit has been filed.

3. Sri. Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, Advocate assisted by Sri. Hari Krishna Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri. Vaibhav Aanad, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that he may be permitted to correct the date of the rejection order.

5. Sri. Vaibhav Aanad, learned A.G.A. has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist is directed to correct the date of rejection order in the memo of application.

7. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.03.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Allahabad dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2021 (C.N.R. No. UPAD-01-002208-2021) (Sachin @ Sachin Bhartiya vs. State of U.P.) and affirming the orders dated 20.11.2020 and 15.01.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case No. 45 of 2020 (State vs. Sachin @ Sachin Bhartiya), arising out of Case Crime No. 01/2020, under Sections 452, 392, 364, 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5G, 6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Bahariya, District Allahabad.

8. Heard Sri. Yadavendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri. Vaibhav Aanad, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

9. The prosecution case, as per the version of the FIR is that when the informant was getting threshed the hey-ricks, his daughter Km. Mahima aged about 14 years, was alone in the house and finding her alone, Sachin Shivshankar, on 30.12.2019 at around 7.00 P.M. sneaked into his house and stolen Rs. 10,000/- and anklet weighing 10 tolas, kept in the box and while his daugher prevented them from doing so, they gagged her mouth and their two aides Krishna Kumar and Dharmendra Kumar, who were waiting outside the house, they all kidnapped her and outraged her modesty and they all threatened him that they would done him to death and on 01.01.2020 at around 12.30 P.M. they all barged into his house threatened him.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the version of the F.I.R. and the statement of the prosecutrix demonstrates that there was consent of the prosecutrix and she went along with the revisionist and she was in love with the revisionist but on the pressure of the family members, who recovered the prosecutrix and put pressure upon her, she changed her statement.

12. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the prosecutrix was medically examined by the doctor of District Women Hospital, Allahabad and the X-ray of the prosecutrix was got conducted wherein her age was opined to about 18 years and as per medico legal examination report, no violence was observed by the doctor.

13. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, the chain of the incident is not complete and the prosecution itself failed to prove the alleged place of incident.

14. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that there is contradiction in the version of the FIR and statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

15. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is minor, whereas the victim is major and able to understanding her well being.

16. 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, p