- (1.) THIS Cr. Revision has been preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which is directed against the order impugned passed by the Sessions Judge,Garhwa in Cr. Appeal No. 40 of 2009 on 17-7-2009 by which the prayer for bail of the petitioner Anish Ansari @ Chhathudd in Ansari was dismissed for the alleged offence under Section 376, IPC.
(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that while the prosecutrix Zubeda Khatoon aged about 15 years had been out in the field with her sister-in-law for cutting the grass and were cutting at two different places, in the meantime, the petitioner Anish Ansari alias Chhathudd in Ansari along with the another accused Sadam Hussain came there who threatened to ravish her. In spite of the resistance made by the prosecutrix, she was forcibly pinned down on the grass and it was the petitioner who committed rape on her by removing her undergarment and thereafter the another accused Sadam Hussain committed rape. On the alarm there being raised her sister-in-law came there but both were threatened of dire consequences that they would be killed and thrown in the wheat field. THE prosecutrix came to her home and reported the matter and thereafter her statement was recorded at the Police Station giving rise to Dhurki P. S. Case No. 9 of 2009 for the alleged offence under Section 376, IPC though it was an alleged case of gang rape by two accused. I find from the order impugned that the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa refused to grant bail to the petitioner-juvenile on the ground and accepting the plea of Juvenile Justice Board that the release of the petitioner would expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and that he was in association of adult co-accused. Learned Counsel submitted that admittedly, the petitioner is a juvenile and Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act lays down mandatory provision for the bail of a juvenile but with certain exceptions for the refusal if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of a juvenile delinquent would bring into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. But in the instant case, learned Sessions Judge has not indicated in the order impugned that the case of the petitioner has been found in the category of exception clause so as to deny his bail. The petitioner is in custody since 4-3-2009 and in the similar situation, learned Counsel pointed out that this Court in Subodh Kumar Pandit @ Dhaneshwar Pandit v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2006 (4) East Cr Case 237 (Jhr) observed, "The learned Sessions Judge perhaps lost sight of this aspect of benevolent and beneficial legislation in favour of the juvenile in conflict with law. The grounds for rejection by the Sessions Judge in Cr. Misc. Appeal No. 41 of 2006 is against the proviso of Section 12 and, therefore, it is not tenable in the eye of law." The Court had granted bail to the juvenile by considering the provision of law referred to hereinbefore.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned A. P. P. opposed the bail which has been preferred by way of revision on the ground that the petitioner with another has demonstrated extreme form of brutality by committing gang rape on a minor girl aged about 15 years which discloses the mental status of the petitioner and his release would certainly expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger adversely affecting his future and, therefore, his case comes in the exception category of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. I find substance in the argument advanced on behalf of learned A. P. P. Thus keeping in view the gravity of the allegation and the extent of brutality demonstrated by the petitioner by committing gang rape on a minor girl and that it may expose him to moral and psychological danger, I am not inclined and hence his prayer for bail stands rejected.;