Sumit @ Sumit Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 6345 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 77
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1040 of 2021
 
Revisionist :- Sumit @ Sumit Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Somdev Dixit
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 8.1.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board whereby the bail application of the revisionist in Case No. 3 of 2021, Case Crime No. 129 of 2020, under Sections 376DA IPC, Section 5g/6 POCSO Act and Section 3 (2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Balrai, District Etawah was rejected as well as the order dated 5.2.2021 whereby the appeal filed against the said bail rejection order has also been dismissed.

The prosecution case as levelled against the the revisionist is that on the date of the incident, the revisionist as well as one other co-accused Raja had committed rape on the victim.

I have perused the statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC as well as medical report on record.

In the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the version as disclosed in the FIR was reiterated, however, in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, name of five persons was taken alleging that five persons have committed rape. The main submission of the counsel for the revisionist is that admittedly the revisionist is a juvenile and of 15 years of age and none of the requirement of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act') have been recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board or the Appellate Court so as to deny the benefit of bail to the revisionist.

A perusal of the said two orders, it is clear that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court were swayed by the gravity of the offence and no consideration was given to the requirments enumerated under the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act. The revisionist is in custody since 9.11.2020.

Considering the fact as enumerated above as well as the mandate of Section 12 (1) of the Act, the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 8.1.2021 and 5.2.2021 are set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is also allowed.

Let the revisionist Sumit @ Sumit Kumar 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.

Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be accepted as a true copy of this order.

Order Date :- 16.6.2021

vinay