ANKIT UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred by the revisionist Ankit Upadhaya being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28 -10 -2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Farrukhabad in Criminal Bail No. 36 of 2005 whereby the bail was dismissed and the prayer for releasing the revisionist on bail was refused and the order dated 7 -10 -2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board; whereby the prayer for releasing the revisionist was refused.

(2.) THE facts in brief of this case are that an FIR was lodged by Prem Pal Varshney on 1 -11 -2004 at 1 p.m. at P.S. Auraiya in Case Crime No. 320 of 2004 under Sections 302, 394, 201, IPC. It was lodged against the unknown persons. But during investigation, the name of the revisionist was disclosed by the co -accused before the I.O. The only allegation against the revisionist is the confessional statement of the co -accused recorded by the I.O. and there is no other evidence against the revisionist. The revisionist is a minor. He has been declared juvenile under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. But the prayer for releasing him on bail has been refused on 7 -10 -2005 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad. Against the order dated 7 -10 -2005, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad, the revisionist filed the Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2005, the same has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Farrukhabad, on 28 -10 -2005.

(3.) IT is contended by the Counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been declared juvenile and that order has not been challenged by the State of U.P. or the first informant. Consequently, it has become final. The revisionist is entitled for bail because there is no finding recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board that there is any reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice as envisaged by the Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which reads as under: