Rohit Patel vs State Of U.P. And Anoter
2021 Latest Caselaw 10993 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 88
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 84 of 2021
 

 
Revisionist :- Rohit Patel
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anoter
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Nand Kishor Mishra,Abhinav Mishra,Anil Kumar Dubey,Nand Kishor Mishra,Shilpa Ahuja
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., 
 

 
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

Heard Sri Nand Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

This revision has been filed challenging order dated 21.09.2020 passed by theJuvenile Justice Board, Varanasi whereby the bail application of the revisionist in Misc. Application No. 384 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 142 of 2020, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Rohaniyan, District Varanasi was rejected as well as the order dated 07.11.2020 passed by Special Judge, (POCSO Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Varanasi whereby the Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2020 filed against the same has also been dismissed.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that statements of victim were recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that the revisionist has developed physical relations with her on false assurance of marriage. It is submitted that the age of the victim as per medical report is 18-19 and she is major. From the statement recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it appears that she is consenting party and as such no offence is made out against the revisionist. He argues that admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile and while deciding the bail application, the Juvenile Justice Board has solely considered the gravity of the offence alleged and had not even considered the requirement of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act'). He argues that the Appellate Court had committed the same error in dismissing the appeal.

I have perused the orders rejecting the bail application and the appeal, who do not record any reasons as required in terms of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act.

Considering the age of the revisionist who is minor and in custody since 20.08.2020, the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and orders dated 21.09.2020 and 07.11.2020 are set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is also allowed.

Let revisionist Rohit Patel be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board concerned.

Order Date :- 27.8.2021

Vikram