SACHIN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) With the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the revision is finally decided at this very stage.

(3.) The revisionist is accused under Sec. 377 IPC. It is not disputed that he was declared to be juvenile within the meaning of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. However, the bail has been declined to him by the Magistrate concerned as well as appellate Court. Aggrieved he has come up in this revision under Sec. 53 of the aforesaid Act.