LALAUNU @ BIRENDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA for the State respondent and also perused the record.

(2.) THIS criminal revision has been filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 9.10.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District Unnao in Criminal Appeal No.103 of 2013 (Lalaunu @ Birendra Yadav v. State of U.P.) and order dated 23.8.2013 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board, District Unnao in Case No.134 of 2013 by which bail application of the juvenile was rejected, and appeal filed under Section 52 of the Act too has been rejected.

(3.) ACCORDING to prosecution version, FIR was lodged by Kamlesh, son of Maiku, in Police Station Bighapur, Unnao on 21.5.2013, at about 11.45 AM, alleging that Jai Singh, son of Hari Yadav, and his brother in law Lalloo alias Birendra, son of Shiv Shanker Yadav, entered into his house in the night, at about 11 PM, and after tying her eyes and gaging his daughter, lifted her towards Sumaraha and raped her. When his father woke up, he found his daughter missing. On search, he was informed that she was being taken to village Sumaraha on motorcycle. When he went there, he found a motorcycle without number plate, two mobiles and a cot. After search, he found his daughter in nude condition, her eyes and mouth was tied by the napkin (Angauchha) and scarf (Chunari). He brought his daughter in unconscious state to his house. On this, a case under Sections 452, 376 IPC, Section 3 (2) (5) of the SC and ST Act and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was registered. After recovery, statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Revisionist was declared juvenile. When he moved bail application, it was rejected on the ground that if he is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he will come in association with known criminals and it will exposes him to moral, physical and psychological danger and release would defeat the ends of justice. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, an appeal under Section 52 of the Act was moved, which too was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, this criminal revision has been filed.