SANJAY CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been preferred by Sanjay Chaudhary (minor) through his father, natural guardian for being enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.186 of 2019 u/s 363, 366, 376, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, P.S. Thodhibari, district Maharajganj.

(2.) The Juvenile Justice Board, Maharajganj by order dated 29.11.2019 in Bail Application No.76 of 2019 has rejected the bail application. The Sessions Judge, Maharajganj by order dated 20.12.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2019 has dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the instant revision in brief are that a First Information Report was lodged on 14.9.2019 at 16:40 hour by opposite party no.2 Virendra Chaudhary alleging that on 22.8.2019 between 4-5 hour, the revisionist enticed away his minor daughter Km. Gunja aged 16 years; that when he went to the house of the revisionist to complain to his parents, they abused him and also threatened to kill him; that he made serious attempts to search out his daughter, but when she could not be found, he lodged the First Information Report in question. The police got the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 5.10.2019, in which she stated that she was married to one Sonu in May, 2016; that her gaunah had not taken place; that the accused belongs to her village; that the accused took her to his bua's place at Nautanava; that they kept roaming from one place to another for about 10-15 days; that the accused established physical relationship with her; that she was released only after her father lodged the First Information Report. The police submitted charge sheet against the revisionist u/s 363, 366, 376, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.