A criminal revision against the denial of bail to a juvenile accused of rape and abduction. The High Court allowed the revision, held no good ground existed for refusal, and ordered release on personal bond.
Revisionist Bilal enlarged on bail via personal bond by legal guardian and sureties in like amounts to satisfaction of JJB.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3142 of 2016
Revisionist :- Bilal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Usha Srivastava,Manish Joshi,Saurabh Tripathi,Shantanu Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for 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 07.09.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2016 [Bilar (minor) v. State of U.P.], whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bijnor was dismissed. By the said order dated 27.08.2016, Juvenile Justice Board, Bijnor had rejected the bail application of juvenile (revisionist) in in Misc. Case No. 39 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 65 of 2016 (State v. Bilal and Another) under Sections 363, 366, 376-D, 377, 344, 120-B, 109, 323 IPC and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station - Heempur, District - Bijnor.
As per prosecution version, the revisionist along with accused Sonu and other accused took away the prosecutrixes, aged about 14 years and 18 years and committed rape on them at several places.
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 Juvenile Justice Board, Bijnor rejected the bail application of the applicant (revisionist) on the ground that his release 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 the ends of justice.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that as per medical report, the prosecutrixes are major. The main accused - Sonu and Abrar have been enlarged on bail vide orders of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 38270 of 2016 (Sonu v. State of U.P.) and Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. - 33091 of 2016 (Abrar v. State of U.P.) dated 07.11.2016 and 09.12.2016, respectively. Copy of bail orders have been collectively annexed at Annexure No. 2 of the supplementary affidavit appended to the revision. There is no internal or external injury caused to the prosecutrixes or any sign of rape being committed on them. The prosecutrixes have left their residence on their own sweet will.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
There is nothing adverse against the revisionist in the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, Bijnor. 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 - Bilal (Juvenile) be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 65 of 2016 (State v. Bilal and Another) under Sections 363, 366, 376-D, 377, 344, 120-B, 109, 323 IPC and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station - Heempur, District - Bijnor 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 :- 23.4.2018 I. Batabyal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Juvenile Justice Board correctly rejected bail for the juvenile accused lacking material to show risk of reiterating crime or association with criminals.
Whether the revisionist deserves release on bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act considering medical reports and absence of injuries.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Bilal
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
