RAMESH ALIAS MESHU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Ramesh alias Meshu, who is undisputedly a juvenile, has filed this criminal revision against the orders dated 2.7.2004 and 12.8.2004 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sonepat and Addl. Sessions Judge, Sopepat, respectively vide which bail has been declined to him in case FIR No. 42 dated 27.3.2004 under Sections 323, 376, 452, 506 and 325 IPC registered at Police Station Murthal, District Sonepat. In this case, the aforesaid FIR has been lodged by one Smt. Roshni, a married lady of 35 years of age, alleging therein that she was forcibly raped by 4/5 persons including the petitioner in her house at 1.30 A.M. on 27.3.2004.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that in the medico-legal report, it was initially stated by the complainant that she had suffered injuries in an assault in the village. At the time of her medico-legal examination, she did not state the fact regarding committing rape on her by 4/5 persons nor any medical examination in this regard was conducted. Subsequently, on the next date, an application was moved for her examination on the allegations of rape. Counsel further contends that during investigation, it was found that the names of other persons were falsely implicated and the challan was filed only against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was only 17 years of age at the time of the alleged offence and it is highly improbable that a person of such an age will commit rape on a lady of 35 years old having major daughters at home. He further submitted that the petitioner, who is a juvenile, has been falsely implicated in this case and the Courts below have not considered the prayer of bail of the petitioner on the principle laid down under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 and have declined bail only on the ground that it will defeat the ends of justice.

(3.) IN view of the above facts stated by the counsel for the petitioner, on which I do not want to make any comment on merits as it will prejudice the case of either side, I am of the opinion that release of the petitioner will not defeat the ends of justice. In view of the aforesaid, this criminal revision is allowed, the impugned orders dated 2.7.2004 and 12.8.2004 are set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Sonepat. Revision allowed.