MAROOF Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supplementary-affidavit filed today, is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The brief facts as emanate from record reveal that a first information was lodged at case crime No. 181 of 2013 under Section 376 (d), 120-B, I.P.C. and Section 5(g), 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali district Shamili on 10.6.2013, wherein the revisionist (juvenile) was one of the accused. The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet was filed. During the course of the proceedings, the revisionist claimed himself to be a juvenile by moving an application before the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffar Nagar (in short referred to as the Board). The Board, after due consideration, allowed the application so moved, vide order dated 14.4.2014 and thereafter, he moved an application for bail before the Board. The Board after considering the application for bail, rejected the same vide order dated 25.4.2014, holding that in case the juvenile is released on bail, it may bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and his release on bail will defeat the ends of justice. Thereafter, Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2014 was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, wherein the appellate Court confirmed the finding of the Board and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 19.5.2014. Consequently, this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in this case the Courts below completely overlooked and misread the contents of the report of the District Probation officer while making observation about the well being of the minor (juvenile), that his release would adversely effect the moral, physical or psychological interest, thus, defeating the ends of justice.