X(MINOR) Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mayank Krishna S. Chandel, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ghanshyam Kesarwani, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. No one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, even in the revised call.

(2.) The Present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his father under Sec. 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "JJ Act, 2015") against the judgment dtd. 10/6/2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Banda in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2022, whereby the appellate court has rejected the Criminal appeal and affirmed the order dtd. 19/4/2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Banda. The Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the bail application of the revisionist, which has been filed by his natural guardian/father, under Sec. 12 of "JJ Act, 2015"in Case Crime No. 29 of 2022, under Ss. 376, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "I.P.C.") and Ss. 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act), and Sec. 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short "POCSO Act"), Police Station-Marka, District-Banda.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The revisionist was 14 years and 8 months old at the time of the incident. As per educational certificate, the Juvenile Justice Board declared the revisionist as juvenile vide order dtd. 7/4/2022 and no proceeding is pending against the order.