- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits and other documents filed by the parties. Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 18.5.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2013 whereby the application of the revisionist under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Care and Protect Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'J.J. Act' for grant of bail in case crime No. 36/2013 under Section 354(1)(i), 376(2)(H)/511, 306 and 509 IPC P.S. Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah had been rejected. It was alleged that on 25.2.2013 at about 7 a.m. in the Main Market of Jaswant Nagar the revisionist alongwith his four associates caught hold the 15 years' old daughter of complainant while she was going for tuition .She was dragged into a lane and all of them attempted to forcibly commit rape with her and also showed her obscene photographs. On her alarm witnesses came to her rescue. The victim consumed some poisonous substance in the market. She came back home alongwith her brother and narrated the incident. She became unconscious and was admitted in Saifai hospital where she died in the evening of 26.2.2013. The revisionist was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 20.4.2013, however, his bail application was rejected after obtaining police report and report of the Probation Officer. His aforesaid appeal filed before Sessions Judge had been rejected vide judgment dated 18.5.2013. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal of the revisionist has held that there is every likelihood of the delinquent juvenile after release on bail would associate with criminals and expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.
(2.) Castigating the impugned judgments, learned counsel for the revisionist has argued there is no evidence to show that if the juvenile-revisionist is released on bail, then his 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 ends of justice. He further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. Learned Courts below in quite cursory manner have declined bail to the applicant-petitioner. His submission is that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are not based upon definite facts and they are based on surmises and conjectures as they have not considered the report of the police and the Probation Officer.
(3.) Per contra learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 learned AGA have contended that considering the nature of offence the revision is liable to be dismissed. They have defended the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the petitioner as also the judgment passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.;