Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 735 (ALL)

KRISHNA RAWAL v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-04-08

MANOJ MISRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Counter-affidavit filed today, is taken on record. Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal for the revisionist; the learned A.G.A. for the State; Sri J.B. Singh for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the record. 2. The instant revision application has been filed against order dated 20.8.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Crl. Appeal No. 49 of 2014 by which the appeal of the revisionist against the order dated 4.7.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam Buddh Nagar rejecting the bail prayer of the revisionist in Case Crime No. 665 of 2013, P.S. Greater Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, under Section 376 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Pocso Act has been dismissed and the bail prayer of the revisionist has been rejected. 3. The prosecution case is that the revisionist had committed rape of a minor girl student of Class II, aged about 9 years. The medical examination of the victim reveals hymen torn and bleeding and she has supported the prosecution case as against the revisionist in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Courts below have rejected the bail plea of the revisionist. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the bail plea of a juvenile, under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, can be rejected only 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. It has been submitted that no such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the revisionist, particularly when it is well-settled that the gravity of an offence is not a relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to a juvenile. 5. The learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel for the informant submitted that the age of the revisionist has been determined to be just below 18 years in age by order of the Board dated 4.7.2014 and since it is a case where there is rape of a girl child aged below 10 years, it can safely be assumed that the revisionist is a depraved person and in such circumstances, his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice. 6. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. No doubt the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is correct that gravity of an offence is not a relevant consideration to reject the bail prayer of a juvenile. But what is to be seen is whether in the facts of the case, if bail is granted to the revisionist it would defeat the ends of justice or not. No doubt the phrase “defeat the ends of justice” is not defined in the Act but what it does, is to leave an element of discretion with the Court. In the instant case, the revisionist is just bordering around 18 years in age, as found from the order of the Juvenile Justice Board while considering his plea of juvenility, and is accused of rape of a Class II girl student, aged about 9 years. The allegations are prima facie substantiated by the medical examination report as well as the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Rape of such a young child is suggestive of mental depravity and a propensity to commit acts of such nature. Under the circumstances, the longer the juvenile is kept in care, the better it is for the society as well as for him. This Court is, therefore, of the view that releasing the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice. The revision application is dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously. ———————