VINAY SAINI @ MONTI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) INSTANT criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 10.11.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2014 'Vinay Saini @ Monti vs. State' and the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar in case crime no. 311 of 2014, under Section 377, 307 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Ranipur, District Haridwar, whereby bail application of the revisionist was rejected.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the revisionist is juvenile, as is also revealed out from the orders of Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Sessions Judge. The revisionist, at the time of the incident in question, was 15 years 3 months old. The revisionist was arrested in connection with case crime no. 311 of 2014, under Section 377, 307 IPC and 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, police station Ranipur, District Haridwar. It is alleged in the FIR that revisionist, committed sodomy on a child, namely, Prince (aged 6 years) and also committed MARPEET with him. The Juvenile Justice Board rejected the bail application holding that incase the revisionist is enlarged from jail, it cannot be said that he will not associate with other criminals. I have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Court and found that the same observations have been made by the Appellate Court what have been expressed by Juvenile Justice Board.