Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3377 (ALL)

Deepu Thru. His Father Agnu v. State of U. P.

2015-10-28

ANANT KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT Anant Kumar, J. This revision, under Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been filed against the order dated 04.02.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2015, and order dated 21.01.2015, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao, whereby the bail application No. 04 of 2015, of the revisionist Deepu, in Case Crime No. 931 of 2014, under Section 376 (2) Jha, Tha, and Gha of I.P.C., Police Station Aasiwan, District Unnao has been rejected. 2. Brief facts, for disposal of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant Prakash Pasi to the effect that on 18.09.2014, when he was easing himself in the field, he heard the commotion of his daughter aged about 15 years who is deaf and dumb and one leg is also not proper. When he heard the noise, he went in nearby grove where he saw that near a Kathal tree one Sonu, S/o Bhaiyalal was laying upon her and present revisionist Deepu, S/o Angnu was standing at a some distance. Having seen the complainant, both the boys had run away. The clothes of the victim were in disturbed condition. It was stated that the accused Sonu, S/o Bhaiyalal with the help and connivance of the present revisionist has committed rape with the victim. This fact was confirmed by him in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Since the victim was deaf and dumb, her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by gestures. In the internal examination, no spermatozoa was found in the slide. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and perused the record. 4. In the internal examination, no spermatozoa was found in the slide. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and perused the record. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the revisionist that while rejecting the bail application of the revisionist, the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned District and Sessions Jude have failed to take into consideration the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which mandates as under: - "12.Bail of juvenile.- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. (2).............................................................................. (3).............................................................................." 5. It is further submitted that in this case co-accused Sonu has already been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1/Special Judge, Unnao vide his order dated 17.04.2015, a copy of which is filed along with the supplementary affidavit. It is also stated that the report of the Probationary Officer, Unnao has also been filed along with another supplementary affidavit which also does not speak anything adverse against the revisionist. 6. Encountering the argument, the learned A.G.A. has submitted that with the help and connivance of present revisionist rape has been committed by Sonu, so the act of both the accused comes within the definition of gang rape and the present revisionist does not deserve any sympathy and the revision is liable to be dismissed as the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Unnao is a speaking and reasoned order. 7. It is evident from the contents of F.I.R. that revisionist is shown to have been standing at some distance, where the alleged rape was committed. 7. It is evident from the contents of F.I.R. that revisionist is shown to have been standing at some distance, where the alleged rape was committed. But it is not clear that at what distance the present revisionist was standing. No specific role of the present revisionist is shown in the crime. 8. In view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 in my view the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned Sessions Judge, Unnao should have granted the revisionist bail and by not granting bail to the revisionist the learned court below has committed an illegality and to my view for these reasons the revision is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The order dated 04.02.2015 and order dated 21.01.2015 are set aside. 9. The bail application of the revisionist is allowed. Let the revisionist (Deepu) be released on bail on executing two reliable sureties, out of which one of his father and one independent sureity to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned.