Court No. - 81

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2126 of 2020

Revisionist :- Rahul Yadav (Juvenile)

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Sushil Dubey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Naveen Srivastava,J.

List revised.

Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. are

present.

No one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.

This revision has been filed against the judgment and order

dated 03.06.2020, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special

Judge (Exclusive POCSO Court), Mainpuri in Criminal Appeal

No. 3 of 2020, which was preferred against the order dated

14.02.2020, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

Board, Mainpuri rejecting the bail application of the revisionist.

The appeal filed against the same has been also dismissed by

the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Exclusive

POCSO Court), Mainpuri by the impugned order.

The FIR was registered by the mother of the victim against the

revisionist Rahul (minor) in respect of incident dated

02.10.2019 on 03.10.2019 for the offence Under Section 376

(A,B) I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act in Case Crime No. 402 of

2019, PS Kurawali, District Mainpuri with the allegation that

on 02.10.2019 at about 1:00 pm when her daughter (victim)

aged about 13 years was returning home from school, the

accused-revisionist met her and told that her uncle Nahar Singh

has called her in the field. She alongwith Rahul went there and

where in the bush accused-revisionist Rahul committed rape on

her. Victim after returning home narrated the whole incident to

her mother (complainant)

The admitted fact is that the revisionist was declared juvenile

by order dated 27.11.2019 by the Juvenile Justice Board,

Mainpuri Bail application was given before the Juvenile Justice

Board and the same was rejected vide impugned order against

which an appeal was filed and the appeal was also rejected by

the impugned order dated 03.06.2020.

Both the orders have been challenged in this revision on the

basis that both the courts below passed the impugned orders

against the law and facts on record and the impugned orders are

perverse vitiated and contrary to law and fact, therefore, the

impugned orders are not sustainable under law and are liable to

be set aside and the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail.

Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the

victim was examined under Section 164 CrPC by the

Magistrate in which she denied the fact of rape by the

revisionist. Submission is that the radiological report of the

victim shows that the victim was aged about 13 years whereas,

the revisionist has been found to be aged about 11 years. The

age of the revisionist was not considered while rejecting the bail

application and the same was rejected on the basis of

seriousness and gravity of the offence. Submission is that this

fact was ignored by both the courts below and the application

for bail was wrongly rejected. It has been also submitted that

victim, her mother and brother in their statements recorded

before the Juvenile Justice Board have not supported the

prosecution version and in support of his contention learned

counsel for the revisionist has filed a supplementary affidavit

annexing certified copies of the aforesaid statements. It has

been also submitted that the legal provision provided under

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act was not interpreted in the

right prospective which requires justice to be done to the

juvenile. It has also been submitted that there was nothing

adverse against the juvenile in the report of the Probationary

Officer and there was no legal ground to deny bail to the

revisionist. Submission is that the impugned orders are

apparently illegal and the courts below has committed

jurisdictional error. There is material illegality and irregularity,