- (1.) By means of this revision, the revisionist has questioned the legality of the order dated 20.02.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2014, Vishal @ Satya Prakash @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P. under Section 52 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (Hereinafter referred to as Juvenile Justice Act), whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the revisionist against the order dated 7.2.2014 of Juvenile Justice Board passed in Case Crime No. 129 of 2013 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 325 of I.P.C., Police Station Khajni, District Gorakhpur, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the bail application moved by the revisionist.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the orders passed by both the courts below are illegal and arbitrary. Both the courts below have not exercised their jurisdiction properly. No plausible reason has been assigned by the courts below while refusing to release the revisionist on bail. Both the learned courts below have not considered the provision of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act in letter and spirit. It has further been argued that there was nothing in the report submitted by District Probation Officer to indicate that after being released on bail there is likelihood of the revisionist coming into association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Despite that the learned courts below have refused to release the revisionist on bail without any supporting material on the record. It is settled law that gravity of offence will not be considered while deciding his bail application but both the courts below committed error of law while rejecting the bail application of the revisionist. The revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village politics. No specific role has been assigned to the revisionist. There is delay in F.I.R. The incident is alleged to have taken place in midnight but no source of light has been shown in the F.I.R. The revisionist is a juvenile, so he is entitled to be benefited by the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revision be allowed. Impugned order be quashed and the revisionist be released on bail.
(3.) Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision by contending that the courts below have rightly exercised their jurisdiction by refusing the bail to juvenile and there is no need to interfere in the order impugned.;