KALAMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal revisions have been preferred, by the revisionists/accuseds Kalamuddin and Ajay Gupta respectively under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgement and orders passed by the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in criminal appeals No. 179 of 2007 Kalamuddin versus State of U.P and criminal appeal No. 177 of 2007, Ajay Gupta versus State of U.P., whereby the appeals filed by the revisionists against the orders dated 1.12.2007 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur, were dismissed and the prayers for bail were rejected.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the revisionists/accused Kalamuddin and Ajay Gupta are accused in crime No. 911 of 2007 under Section 376 and 109, IPC, P.S Kotwali, district Maharajganj. Both the revisionists were declared juvenile in conflict with law by order dated 30.10.2007 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The revisionists moved applications for bail before the Board under Section 12 of the Act. The applications were rejected by the Board by order dated 1.12.2007 on the ground that if they were released on bail, they might come into association with known criminals or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger.

(3.) Against the orders dated 1.12.2007 passed by the Board, Kalamuddin filed criminal appeal No. 179 of 2007 and Ajay Gupta filed criminal appeal No. 177 of 2007 before the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur under Section 52 of the Act. The Appellate Court was of the view that the appellants had committed rape with a minor girl of 13 years of age and as per the report of the Police, they could join some criminal organisation and as per the report of the District Probation Officer, the appellants were indifferent towards the discipline of their parents and, therefore, in every possibility, on their release, the appellants would come in contact with criminals, which would expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger and that the release of the appellants would defeat the ends of justice. The above orders have been challenged in these two revisions which are being disposed of by a common order.