ANKIT KASHYAP Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist for quashing the judgment and order dated 09.04.2018 passed by the learned FTC/ Special Judge, POCSO/ Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2018, " Ankit Kashyap Vs. State" as well as order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Bail Application No. 21 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 67 of 2018, relating to offences punishable under Section 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act. The revisionist moved the bail application before the learned Juvenile Justice Board; but, the same was rejected vide order dated 004.2018. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Courts below have wrongly denied bail to the juvenile merely on the basis of some assumption or presumption. He further submitted that Courts below have erred in law while refusing bail to the revisionist and overlooked that as per Section 12 of the Act, the bail to the accused can only be refused when there are possibility that accused can further indulge in criminal activity or can remain in touch of anti-social elements. He submitted that in the present case, the crime alleged against the applicant is not such a nature, on the basis of which, the revisionist can remain in touch of anti-social elements or criminals. He further submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in a mechanical manner and are based on surmises and conjectures.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist referred to the statement of the girl recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In her statement, the girl stated that she knew the petitioner for last 5-6 years. She further stated that she loves the petitioner and she went with the petitioner with her will. She further stated that she loves the petitioner and she does not wish to go with her parents.